Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Sep 4.
Published in final edited form as: J Divers High Educ. 2024 Jan 22;18(Suppl 1):S100–S110. doi: 10.1037/dhe0000548

Longitudinal Associations between Well-Being and Academic Achievement throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic: Testing the Moderating Role of Academic Stress among First-Generation and Continuing College Students

Chelsea Derlan Williams 1, Oswaldo Moreno 1, Kristina B Hood 1, Arlenis Santana 1, Kaprea F Johnson 2, Sally I-Chun Kuo 3, Isis Garcia-Rodriguez 1, Rumbidzai Mushunje 2, Maria J Elias 1; The Spit for Science Working Group1,#, Jasmin Vassileva 1, Danielle M Dick 3, Ananda B Amstadter 1, Diamond Y Bravo 4
PMCID: PMC12396594  NIHMSID: NIHMS1946036  PMID: 40893708

Abstract

First-generation and ethnic-racial minoritized college students experience greater academic disparities, but limited work has focused on intersectional experiences underlying academic achievement in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic over time. The current longitudinal study examined the associations between various forms of well-being (i.e., emotional, psychological, and social) at T1 (Time 1; acute pandemic) predicting academic achievement (GPA) at T2 (ongoing pandemic), while accounting for T1 GPA. We also examined whether academic stress disrupted the association between T1 well-being and T2 GPA. We tested differences between first-generation college students of color, continuing (i.e., students who are not first-generation college students) college students of color, first-generation college white students, and continuing college white students (N = 880). Consistent with expectations, results indicated that the associations varied based on the intersection of ethnic-racial background and college student generational status. Among first-generation college students of color and continuing college students of color, psychological well-being at T1 predicted higher GPA at T2 but only when academic stress was low (high academic stress disrupted this association and it became non-significant). Among continuing students of color, T1 emotional well-being predicted greater T2 GPA. Inconsistent with expectations, among continuing white students, T1 social well-being was associated with lower T2 academic achievement. Overall, findings indicate that examining the intersectionality of identities provides an important, nuanced understanding of students’ academic achievement and how academic stress impedes positive processes over time.

Keywords: COVID-19/coronavirus pandemic, first-generation college students, well-being, academic stress, academic achievement

Academic disparities continue to disproportionately impact first-generation college students and students from racial and ethnic minoritized backgrounds more than students from non-racial and ethnic minoritized backgrounds (McCallen & Johnson, 2020). First-generation college students are “students whose parents have not received a bachelor’s degree” (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Ethnic-racial minoritized students “are minoritized by others rather than naturally existing as a minority through a social process shaped by power” (Milner, 2020). Ethnicity refers to one’s shared cultural heritage (e.g., traditions, language), and race refers to the socially constructed grouping of individuals based on phenotypic attributes (e.g., skin tone, hair texture (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014). Often, individuals’ identity-relevant lived experiences often include both ethnic and racialized experiences that are not always easily disentangled from one another, therefore, the term ethnic-racial minoritized students is used in the current study. Importantly, individuals with multiple marginalized identities experience greater disadvantages due to systems of inequality and oppression (Crenshaw, 1989). For instance, first-generation college students and students with ethnic-racial minoritized backgrounds have unique (e.g., psychological and social) needs that are often neglected and overlooked in institutions (e.g., lack of transitional adjustment support, experiences of discrimination, less social support) that are important for student success (Schuyler et al., 2021).

Academic disparities suggest that academic stressors and disruptions have a broader impact on overall GPA and increased dropout rates (Courtney et al., 2018; Stevens et al., 2018). Despite the plethora of resources dedicated to decreasing academic disruptions (Tasso et al., 2021) and increasing higher education persistence (Cadenas et al., 2022), academic achievement (Ives & Castillo-Montoya, 2020), and overall higher GPA (Latino et al., 2020), first-generation college students and students from racial-ethnic minoritized backgrounds continue to experience high rates of stress (House et al., 2020), uncertainty (Gist-Mackey et al., 2018), and less sense of belonging (Gillen-O’Neel, 2021; House et al., 2020), which impacts their GPA and overall academic achievement (Gehringer et al., 2021; Mello et al., 2012). Additionally, academic disparities have worsened since the COVID-19 pandemic (Reuge et al., 2021; Soria et al., 2022), disproportionately placing first-generation college students and students from racial and ethnic minoritized backgrounds vulnerable to worsened academic achievement (Lederer et al., 2021). For many first-generation college students and students from racial and ethnic minoritized backgrounds, the disproportionate amount of academic stress combined with COVID-19 related financial stress, increased illnesses and mortality rates in their communities, family obligations and responsibilities, as well as food and housing insecurities, negatively affected academic achievement during the pandemic (Davis et al., 2021; Soria et al., 2022), and may have lasting educational effects (Dorn et al., 2020). Academically, the COVID-19 pandemic shut down college campuses, forcing courses and educational supports to become virtual (James & Theriault, 2020). The introduction of these new learning modalities may have made vulnerable students more prone to academic stress, feelings of not belonging, and interruptions in their studies. This is especially detrimental because of the loss of critical support provided by a physical campus, such as access to equipment, connections, and resources for social and educational support, which are factors that contribute to academic success (Lederer et al., 2021). Given that these altered learning environments may have increased vulnerabilities, academic disparities may have further widened.

Although it is clear that first-generation and ethnic-racial minoritized students experience greater academic disparities, literature has tended to focus on one group or the other, rather than the intersection of these experiences. For example, do students of color who are also first-generation college students experience greater risks for worse academic outcomes than continuing college students of color (i.e., students who are not first-generation college students, and are instead continuing education pathways within their families)? Alternatively, does being a first-generation college student place individuals at greater risk despite ethnic-racial background? In other words, it is important to understand intersectional experiences in underlying factors that impact college students during the pandemic. Thus, the current study focused on predictors of GPA among first-generation college students of color, continuing students of color, first-generation college white students, and continuing college white students.

In considering processes that may underlie GPA for these four groups of students, literature highlights a positive aspect of well-being known as flourishing (Howell, 2009; Keyes, 2005), which may predict higher academic achievement (Knoesen & Naudé, 2018). However, the majority of this work has been cross-sectional and has not been tested during the COVID-19 pandemic. Changes in academics that occurred across the U.S. impacted normative processes for students; therefore, it is possible that academic stress may hinder the positive effects of well-being on GPA. This possibility has yet to be tested. To address gaps, the current longitudinal study examined the associations between various forms of well-being (i.e., emotional, psychological, and social) at T1 (Time 1; Spring 2020) and GPA at T2 (Time 2; Fall 2020) among first-generation college students of color, continuing college students of color, first-generation college white students, and continuing college white students. We also examined whether academic stress disrupted the associations between T1 well-being factors predicting T2 GPA (see Figure 1 for a conceptual framework of these relations).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Conceptual Framework of Time 1 Well-Being Factors Predicting Time 2 Grade Point Average Moderated by Academic Stress: Testing Differences among First-Generation College Students of Color, Continuing College Students of Color, First-Generation College White Students, and Continuing College White Students

Well-Being Predicting GPA

Academic achievement, such as college GPA, is influenced by many factors, including students’ well-being (Robbins et al., 2004). Well-being is a multidimensional construct (Seligman, 2011), involving emotional, psychological, and social components (Keyes et al., 2012). Scholars have underscored the importance of assessing well-being as a multidimensional construct by including different indicators of well-being in studies that examine the well-being-academic achievement relation (Clarke, 2020). A theoretical framework that is useful for understanding the relation between well-being and GPA is the theory of performance (Elger, 2007). The theory posits that there are various factors that underlie individuals’ abilities to engage in actions that involve their skills and ideas and produce a valuable result (e.g., GPA). One of the underlying predictors of performance in the theory involves individuals’ personal factors, which could include indices of well-being. Accordingly, grounded in the theory of performance (Elger, 2007), emotional, psychological, and social well-being would be expected to inform greater academic performance in terms of GPA.

Previous research has found that indicators of well-being are positively associated with academic achievement in college students. First, emotional well-being reflects the presence of positive feelings and one’s satisfaction with life. Happiness and life satisfaction may help motivate students to set and achieve academic goals and promote success (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Using cross-sectional data of college samples, research indicated that happiness and general life satisfaction are positively correlated with academic functioning, as measured by self-reported GPA (Moussa & Ali, 2022; Rode et al., 2005).

Second, psychological well-being captures the positive aspects of psychological functioning, including a sense of autonomy and personal growth, such as openness to experience (Ryff, 1989). Personal well-being is indeed linked with academic achievement, in part likely driven by the desire and willingness to learn (Duff et al., 2004). A meta-analysis, for example, indicated that openness is positively associated with academic performance in higher education settings (Gatzka & Hell, 2018). Finally, social well-being represents how well individuals function as a member of the larger community and society (Keyes, 1998). Learning theories posit that students engage in educational activities and learn more when they are embedded in the learning environments (Astin, 1984). For example, students’ sense of connection and integration with their peers and college is correlated with academic outcomes, including first-year GPA and college retention (Allen et al., 2008).

Despite the relevance of types of well-being as an important context for college GPA, nuances in these relations based on college student generational status and ethnic-racial background are largely unexplored. We go beyond prior work by focusing on the role of various dimensions of well-being on GPA. We expect that multiple dimensions of well-being will be directed related to GPA and that the relation may vary across students based on academic stress.

Moderating Role of Academic Stress in Relations between Well-being and GPA

The ways in which well-being informs students’ GPA may be influenced by a range of factors, such as academic stress. Academic stress refers to the pressure that students experience in response to competing academic demands (e.g., course load, interactions with instructors, time management, burnout; Freire et al., 2020; Karyotaki et al., 2020). In the context of the pandemic, academic stress included changes in the learning environment to online settings, technological challenges, as well as social isolation and health concerns.

Stress and coping theory (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) clarifies how academic stress may moderate the relation between well-being and GPA. The theory broadly posits how stressors and coping resources impact short-term and long-term outcomes (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Relevant to the current study, authors highlight that stress involves experiencing adversity in one’s goal-related effort that taxes or exceeds an ability to manage the situation. One aspect of the manifestation of stress involves loss, or the notion that a particular form of stress “precludes the continuation of a desired state of affairs (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010).” Accordingly, a desired state of affairs involving individuals’ well-being informing greater GPA may be prevented by academic stress. In other words, high levels of academic stress may weaken the positive relation between well-being and academic performance, while low levels of academic stress may strengthen this relation. High levels of academic stress can impair students’ cognitive and emotional resources, making it more challenging to engage in academic tasks effectively. For example, students who experience high levels of academic stress may have difficulty concentrating, staying motivated, and managing their time, which can negatively impact their academic performance (i.e., GPA). On the other hand, low levels of academic stress may enable students to better manage their cognitive and emotional resources, making it easier to engage in academic tasks effectively, resulting in better academic performance.

Emergent findings from the pandemic indicate that college student well-being was significantly impacted by heightened levels of academic stress (Clabaugh et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022; Yang & Yang, 2022). For instance, one study found that college students’ academic stress was strongly associated with their emotional well-being, such that higher levels of academic stress predicted lower levels of emotional well-being (Barbayannis et al., 2022). In relation to academic outcomes, academic stress has been found to be associated with students’ lowered learning capacities, academic performance, academic motivation, and academic engagement (Pascoe et al., 2020). Such findings imply that academic stress may function as a moderator in the relations between components of well-being and GPA over time because it can represent a source of pressure that affects both students’ ability to maintain a healthy emotional state, as well as their capacity to perform academically. Understanding the moderating role of academic stress may therefore provide insight on how to best support students’ well-being and academic achievement (Li et al., 2022).

Group Differences by Ethnicity/Race and College Student Generational Status

The relations between academic stress, well-being, and GPA are complex and may vary among different groups of college students in higher education. To understand which students may be more susceptible to the negative impacts of academic stress, it is important to examine associations using an intersectional lens. Intersectionality captures the complex experiences of compounding systemic oppression faced by individuals with numerous marginalized identities (Crenshaw, 1989). In the original conceptualization, Crenshaw (1989) notably centers Black women, and highlights that their experiences cannot be reduced to experiences being Black plus experiences being a woman, but rather, involve combined effects of inequality due to sexism and racism in navigating a society that privileges individuals who are white and male. Since its inception, intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989) has been applied to understand individuals’ intersectional experiences of barriers and oppression across various marginalized identities, such as ethnicity and intersectional aspects of immigration status, social class, gender, and age (Cadenas & Kiehne, 2021), and ethnicity/race, gender identity, and sexual orientation (Cerezo et al., 2020), to name a few. In the current study, we focused on intersectionality in terms of ethnicity/race and college student generational status, as both factors may operate collectively in terms of privilege and oppression and influence how academic stress operates.

Ethnicity/Race.

There is evidence to suggest that ethnic-racial group differences exist between white college students and students of color in terms of academic stress and its impact on well-being and GPA. Students of color may experience greater academic stress and have lower levels of well-being compared to white students (Schuyler et al., 2021). This may be due to factors such as ethnicity/race-related stressors (e.g., discrimination, microaggressions, and stereotypes; Schuyler et al., 2021). Additionally, students of color may experience cultural barriers in academic settings, such as a lack of representation in course materials, limited access to resources (e.g., mental health), and difficulty navigating institutional structures, which can contribute to their academic stress and negatively impact their GPA (Stephens et al., 2012). Such barriers may be less present or not present at all for white students. These findings suggest that the intersection of ethnicity/race and academic stress can impact well-being and academic outcomes differently among college students. The negative impact of academic stress on well-being and GPA may be amplified for students of color, relative to their white counterparts.

College student generational status.

First-generation college students and continuing college students may differ in the impact of academic stress on well-being and GPA due to differences in their prior exposure to academic demands and support systems. First-generation college students may face unique challenges related to adjusting to the academic environment and navigating the college experience without the support of family members who have previously gone through the process. This may lead to higher levels of academic stress and lower levels of well-being among first-generation students compared to continuing students. Indeed, research has found that first-generation students are more likely to report higher levels of academic stress and lower levels of academic success compared to continuing students (Stephens et al., 2012; Strayhorn, 2018). Furthermore, the impact of academic stress on GPA may differ between the two groups. For example, one study found that first-generation college students were more likely to experience a decrease in GPA as a result of academic stress compared to continuing students (Chavous et al., 2014). These differences suggest that academic stress may have a more significant impact on the academic outcomes and well-being of first-generation college students compared to continuing students.

Intersection of ethnicity/race and college student generational status.

The experiences of first-generation college students of color may differ significantly from those of continuing college students of color, white first-generation college students, and white continuing college students due to unique stressors and challenges associated with ethnicity/race, racism, and navigating the college environment. Grounded in intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989), students with dually marginalized statuses (i.e., first-generation college students of color) would be expected to experience greater disadvantages and inequity. First-generation college students of color experience even higher levels of academic stress than continuing students of color or white college students. First-generation college students of color may face additional stressors such as financial stress, lack of social support, and cultural and identity-related challenges. These stressors may disrupt their well-being, leading to decreased emotional stability, psychological distress, and social isolation. This may lead to an even greater impact of academic stress on their well-being and GPA. Understanding and addressing the unique stressors and challenges faced by students based on intersecting experiences of ethnicity/race and college generational status is critical for promoting students’ academic success and well-being, however, limited work has focused on these processes intersectionally.

Current Study

The current longitudinal study had three goals. The first goal was to test whether three forms of well-being (i.e., emotional, psychological, and social) at T1 (Time 1; spring 2020 semester) were associated with GPA approximately 7 months later at T2 (fall 2020 semester). Grounded in the theory of performance (Elger, 2007), emotional, psychological, and social well-being at T1 was expected to inform greater GPA at T2.

The second goal was to examine whether students’ academic stress moderated (i.e., disrupted) these associations. Based on stress and coping theory (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), it was expected that high levels of academic stress would weaken the positive relations between indices of well-being at T1 and academic performance at T2, while low levels of academic stress would strengthen these relations.”

Third, we tested differences in associations based on the intersection of students’ ethnicity/race and college student generational status. Thus, we tested whether findings varied between first-generation college students of color, continuing college students of color, first-generation college white students, and continuing college white students. Grounded in intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989), it was expected that there would be greater disruptive effects of academic stress on the relations between well-being at T1 and academic achievement at T2 for students with dually marginalized statuses (i.e., first-generation college students of color) when compared to the other 3 groups that consisted of students with one marginalized identity (i.e., continuing students of color and first-generation white students) and no marginalized identities (i.e., continuing white students).

Lastly, to conduct a more rigorous test of associations over time, we included T1 GPA as a covariate predicting students’ T2 GPA. Further, students’ self-reported age in years and gender identity were also included as covariates.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The data in the current study is from a larger multi-cohort longitudinal study that is investigating how genetic and environmental factors influence mental health and substance use (Dick et al., 2014). First-year students were recruited from a large public university in the mid-Atlantic U.S. to complete an online survey in the fall and follow-up surveys each spring. REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Harris et al., 2009) was used to gather and manage data at the university. Students were compensated $10 for their participation in each survey. Although there are numerous cohorts in the study, the current study focuses on data from cohort 5, given that they were asked questions about their COVID-19 experiences. This cohort began participating in the larger study in their first year of college (fall 2017-spring 2018), and the pandemic began in the spring semester of their third year of college. Thus, we began to evaluate their COVID-19 experiences subsequently every semester. T1 in the current study refers to the initial survey that students completed about their experiences during the pandemic in the spring of 2020, and T2 refers to the survey that students took about the ongoing pandemic in the fall of 2020, which was roughly seven months after their T1 survey. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Virginia Commonwealth University.

Data for the current study included students who reported their ethnicity/race and college student generational status, and were not missing data on all variables included in the current study (N = 880). Given our interest in testing group differences among ethnically-racially diverse, first-generation and continuing college students, we created four groups of students: first-generation college students of color (n = 212), continuing college students of color (n = 314), first-generation college white students (n = 67), and continuing college white students (n = 287). The majority of students who reported their gender identity identified as a cisgender female (80%) and were, on average, 19.95 (SD = .33) years of age (ranging from 19 to 22).

Measures

Emotional, psychological, and social well-being.

The 14-item Mental Health Continuum Short Form (MHC-SF; Keyes et al., 2012) completed at T1 assessed three components of flourishing in the past month: emotional (3 items; e.g., interested in life), psychological (6 items; e.g., confident to think or express your own ideas and opinions), and social (5 items; e.g., you belong to a community). Response options were 0 = Never to 5 = Everyday, and subscale means were computed so that higher scores indicated greater emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Prior studies support the three-factor structure of the MHC-SF, as well as its reliability and validity among college students (e.g., Lamers et al., 2011). Cronbach’s alpha in the current study was .92 for psychological well-being and emotional well-being, and .90 for social well-being.

Academic stress.

Students’ academic stress was assessed with 3 items from the Coronavirus Health and Impact Survey (CRISIS; Nikolaidis et al., 2020) that we summed for use in the current study. The items were: Do you have a lab, art, or other classes that were severely disrupted, i.e., did not transfer well into an online format?”; “Have your professors been easy to communicate with?”; “Do you have easy access to the internet or a computer?” (response options were coded as 0 = No and 1 = Yes). Two of the items (i.e., “Have your professors been easy to communicate with?”; “Do you have easy access to the internet or a computer?.” were reverse-scored so that higher scores represent greater academic stress. A sum score was created using the 3 items so that the range of scores was 0–3. As a relatively new assessment, these three specific items have not been summed yet in previous work. However, related research using the CRISIS measure has used sum scores of various items in the CRISIS measure (Monninger et al., 2022).

Academic achievement.

Participants’ GPA at T2 was used to measure academic achievement, and T1 GPA was included as a covariate. The university provided data on semester GPAs. Students’ GPAs ranged from 0.0 to 4.0, with a 0.0 signifying that they obtained all Fs and a 4.0 signifying that they received all As. In previous work, the GPA of students has been used as a reliable and valid indication of academic achievement (e.g., Byrd & Chavous, 2009).

Covariates & grouping variable.

Students’ self-reported age in years, T1 GPA, and gender identity (coded as 0 = cisgender male, transgender female, transgender male, genderqueer, questioning and 1 = cisgender female; group coded 1 was the largest group) were included as covariates. For the grouping variable we created 4 groups from students’ college student generational status (i.e., “Are you a first-generation college student?”) and self-reported ethnicity/race (coded as white students and students of color). Students who were coded as a white student identified as white (40.2%). Students who were coded as a student of color identified as one of the following: Black/African American (18.4%), Asian (23.1%), Hispanic/Latino (9.5%), American Indian/Native Alaskan (.1%), More than one ethnicity/race (7.6%), and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (1%).

Analytic Approach

To determine the necessary sample size for this study, a post-hoc power analysis was conducted using G*Power software (Faul et al., 2009); the power analysis was conducted with 8 predictors. Thus, with 8 predictors, and a medium effect size (0.15; Cohen, 1988), the total sample size should be 160 in order to detect an effect with a power of 0.95 and an alpha of 0.05. The actual number of participants is (N = 880) exceeds the minimum necessary sample. Given the sample size, there is power to detect small effects.

Hypotheses were tested via multiple group path analyses in Mplus version 8.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 2019), with individuals’ ethnicity/first-generation college student generational status as the grouping variable. Specifically, we tested differences by first-generation college students of color, first-generation white students, continuing students of color, and continuing white students. Our model included T1 GPA, emotional well-being, psychological well-being, social well-being, academic stress, three interaction terms (i.e., emotional well-being × academic stress; psychological well-being × academic stress; and social well-being × academic stress) predicting T2 GPA. Age and gender were included as covariates predicting the T1 variables.

First-generation college student/ethnic-racial differences (i.e., first-generation college students of color, continuing students of color, first-generation college white students, and continuing white students) were tested with nested models, in which a less constrained model (e.g., no paths were constrained by the 4 groups) was compared to a more constrained model (e.g., a path was constrained to be equal across the 4 groups), and a chi-square difference test was conducted (Little et al., 2007). A significant chi-square test indicates that there are significant differences across the 4 groups in the path, and the path is left to vary freely across the groups. If the chi-square test is not significant, it suggests no group differences, and the path is left constrained to be equal across the 4 groups. This process is repeated to determine which paths are significantly different.

We mean-centered exogenous variables prior to the creation of interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991). Simple slopes analysis was used to decompose the significant interactions (Preacher et al., 2006), and interactions were graphed and probed at one standard deviation above and below the mean of the moderator. Model fit was considered to be good if the comparative fit index (CFI) was > .95, and the root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) were < .05 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). We used full information maximum likelihood for missing data (Arbuckle, 1996).

Results

First, Table 1 presents correlations, means, and standard deviations among study variables for the full sample. Tables 1–4 supplemental materials present correlations, means, and standard deviations separately for first-generation college students of color (Table 1 supplemental), continuing college students of color (Table 2 supplemental), first-generation college white students (Table 3 supplemental), and continuing college white students (Table 4 supplemental). In testing our research questions, all of the hypothesized paths were significantly different across the 4 groups and were left to freely vary across groups, and all of the covariate paths were not significantly different and were constrained to be equal across the 4 groups. The final partially constrained model had good fit: χ2 (df = 81) = 70.40, p = .79; RMSEA = 0.00 [90% C.I. = 0.00 – 0.03]; CFI = 1.00 (see Figure 2). Standardized coefficients are reported in Figure 2 and unstandardized coefficients are reported below.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables (N = 880)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. T1 Psychological Well-being --
2. T1 Emotional Well-being .77*** --
3. T1 Social Well-being 70*** .65*** --
4. T1 Academic Stress −.16*** −.15*** −.14*** --
5. T2 GPA .09* .09* .02 .03 --
6. T1 GPA .04 .03 .00 −.02 41*** --
7. Gender .01 −.04 −.08* −.02 −.02 −.00 --
8. Age −.11** −.07* −.05 −.02 .05 −.02 .04 --
Mean 6.52 .45 1.22 3.26 3.06 2.19 .89 19.92
SD 3.09 .93 1.16 1.18 1.25 1.30 .94 .35
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Time 1 Well-Being Predicting Time 2 Grade Point Average Moderated by Academic Stress among First-Generation College Students of Color (FGSC), Continuing College Students of Color (CSC), First-Generation College White Students (FGW), and Continuing College White Students (CW)

Note. T1 = Time (Spring 2020), T2 = Time 2 (Fall 2020). PWB = Psychological Well-being. EWB = Emotional Well-Being. SWB = Social Well-Being. Coefficients are standardized. Hypothesized paths are in black text and control paths are in grey text. Gender and age were included as covariates predicting exogenous variables, but are not displayed for ease of illustration. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

First-generation and continuing college students of color.

Results indicated that for first-generation college students of color, none of the T1 well-being variables or T1 academic stress informed T2 GPA (p > .05), but the interaction between T1 psychological well-being and academic stress predicting T2 GPA was significant (b = −.31, p = .01). Simple slopes analysis indicated that psychological well-being predicted higher GPA at low levels of academic stress (b = .36, p = .01), but this relation was not significant at high levels of academic stress (b = −.07, p = .55; Figure 3). Among continuing college students of color, T1 emotional well-being was associated with higher T2 GPA (b = .15, p = .01). Additionally, academic stress informed higher GPA, but the interaction was significant for academic stress and psychological well-being predicting T2 GPA (b = −.23, p = .01). Simple slopes analysis indicated that psychological well-being predicted higher GPA at low levels of academic stress (b = .18, p = .03), but this relation was not significant at high levels of academic stress (b = −.14, p = .12; Figure 4).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Moderation Effects of Academic Stress on the Association between Time 1 Psychological Well-Being and Time 2 Grade Point Average among First-Generation College Students of Color

Note. **Denotes slope that is significant at p < .01. n.s. denotes slope that is not significant. Unstandardized coefficients were utilized.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Moderation Effects of Academic Stress on the Association between Time 1 Psychological Well-Being and Time 2 Grade Point Average among Continuing Students of Color

Note. *Denotes slope that is significant at p < .05. n.s. denotes slope that is not significant. Unstandardized coefficients were utilized.

First-generation and continuing college white students.

Among first-generation college white students, none of the T1 well-being variables, T1 academic stress, or interaction terms were significantly associated with T2 GPA (p > .05). Among continuing white students, T1 social well-being was associated with lower T2 GPA (b = −.10, p = .03).

Control paths.

The chi-square difference tests indicated that all of the control paths were not significantly different across the 4 groups and were constrained to be equal. T1 GPA was significantly associated with higher T2 GPA (b = .40, p < .001). Cisgender women had lower social well-being compared to cisgender male, transgender female, transgender male, genderqueer, questioning students (b = −.28, p = .04); older students had less psychological well-being compared to younger students (b = −.42, p = .00); and gender was associated with the interaction between psychological well-being and academic stress (b = −.16, p = .04).

Discussion

Although several studies have examined associations between well-being and academic achievement (Clabaugh et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022; Yang & Yang, 2022), little to no research has been conducted on the impacts of well-being and academic stress on academic achievement at the intersection of college student generational status and ethnic and racial background. Our study was grounded in the theory of performance (Elger, 2007) for the relations between well-being and GPA, stress and coping theory (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) for testing academic stress as a moderator, and intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989) for testing group differences. Overall, our findings indicated that there were significant differences in relations at the intersection of ethnicity/race and college student generational status. Among first generation students of color and continuing students of color, psychological well-being was associated with higher T2 GPA when students reported low levels of academic stress, but this was not significant at high academic stress. Well-being and academic stress did not predict T2 GPA among first generation white college students. Among continuing college white students, social well-being was associated with lower T2 GPA, albeit academic stress was not associated with GPA.

Our findings indicated that academic stress moderated the associations between psychological well-being and GPA among students of color. Students of color who were not reporting many transitional academic stressors during the beginning of the pandemic faired better as the pandemic continued. Although past research has found differences between first generation students and continuing students (e.g., Strayhorn, 2018), this investigation found that among students of color, lower levels of academic stress strengthened the relationship between psychological well-being and GPA among both students of color who were first generation and continuing college students. The level of disruption that may occur with higher levels of academic stress may account for the lack of differences experienced between first generation and continuing students of color. Particularly, academic stress due to not having access to the internet or severe disruptions to classes during the first year of the pandemic would have made it difficult to maintain grades. Stay at home orders limited students’ access to resources that would have otherwise been used to troubleshoot challenges regardless of whether students of color were first generation or continuing students. Future research would benefit from assessing the types of needs students have that cause stress and the university’s role in supporting students’ needs.

Also consistent with previous research, our findings support that academic stress influences students of color and white college students’ GPA differently, and these differences were maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrimination and biases that students of color faced in academic spaces have been found to influence experiences of academic stress and well-being of students of color (Barbayannis et al., 2022). Regularly coping with microaggressions, bias, and other adversities in academic spaces could contribute to students of color reporting higher T2 GPA when academic stress levels were low. The protective nature of lower levels of academic stress underscores the importance of healthy coping, support, and resources during COVID-19, but more research is needed, particularly for those who are disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Future research would benefit from assessing strength-based factors that buffer the influence of academic stress and maintain well-being to provide a more comprehensive understanding of well-being during the pandemic.

Implications, Limitations, & Conclusions

The current findings have important implications for supporting student academic achievement in higher education. Our findings suggest that students of color, both first-generation and continuing, are particularly vulnerable to the effects of academic stress disrupting positive processes that help them thrive (e.g., their well-being impacting their academic achievement). During the pandemic, students faced unique challenges related to discriminatory practices (Trammell et al., 2021), worsening of psychological symptoms (Wang et al., 2020), distance learning (Fruehwirth et al., 2021), and social isolation (Son et al., 2020), and those effects are certainly carrying forward throughout their education. Campus environments must reduce stressors that could contribute to academic disruptions and ultimately lower academic achievement, particularly among students of color. Findings suggest that university counselors, faculty, and other university personnel who work with students would benefit from checking in on students’ academic stressors and finding ways to help students reduce them. As one example, student support services and resources can be made more accessible to students (e.g., telehealth) and structurally incorporated (e.g., standardized practices across faculty and students to support students). Health providers on campuses must continually prioritize culturally responsive approaches when serving a diverse student body, as marginalized student experiences are likely to be informed by larger societal issues such as systematic racism. Pedrelli et al. (2015) recommends that college healthcare providers ensure continuity of care during school breaks, have an extensive referral system in place for students whose needs cannot be addressed by campus services, improve parent’s ability to support the student by encouraging their participation in treatment, and ensure coordination of treatment between healthcare providers. Furthermore, faculty can serve as key gatekeepers in identifying students in need of services (Lederer et al., 2021). Our findings highlight that including mentoring programs, culturally responsive counseling services, learning communities, and other resources that can help students navigate the challenges of college life would be valuable. At the institution level, leaders can encourage a campus culture that prioritizes well-being and mental health. This could involve implementing policies and programs that promote mental health, such as mindfulness meditation sessions, stress management workshops, and other aligned activities. By engaging in these steps, leaders in higher education can help support the success of all students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds who may be more vulnerable to academic stress and other challenges.

Alongside the findings, several limitations must be acknowledged. First, there was a relatively small representation of first-generation white college students, making the findings less than generalizable to that population. Additionally, the sample size was not large enough to analyze each ethnic-racial group separately (e.g., the sample consisted of only 9 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students), which can mask important nuances in communities of students. We recognize that students of color are not a homogenous group and note that future research should address this issue by increasing sampling of underrepresented communities of students. Another potential limitation is related to the measure of academic stress, which does not directly ask if the responder is ‘stressed’, but rather it asks about three specific examples that can be stressful (e.g., Have your professors been easy to communicate with?). The measure also does not ask about academic pressures, which is a noted stressor for college students. Future work should consider using a more comprehensive measure of academic stress that also captures factors such as academic anxiety, conflict, pressures, and support.

Despite limitations, the current study used a rigorous approach by accounting for prior levels of academic achievement, testing processes over time, and focusing on differences among four groups of students. Findings bring important understanding to the complex relations between well-being, academic stress, and GPA among college students, particularly when considering the intersectionality of identities. The results suggest that students of color may be particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of academic stress on their academic performance. However, their well-being may have a positive impact on their GPA, as long as academic stress is low. In sum, findings highlight the need for more research and support for marginalized student populations, including strategies to reduce academic stress to enhance well-being and academic achievement.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Material

Acknowledgments

Spit for Science has been supported by Virginia Commonwealth University, P20 AA017828, R37AA011408, K02AA018755, P50 AA022537, and K01AA024152 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and UL1RR031990 from the National Center for Research Resources and National Institutes of Health Roadmap for Medical Research. This research was also supported by the Center for the Study of Tobacco Products at Virginia Commonwealth University. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the NIH or the FDA. Data from this study are available to qualified researchers via dbGaP (phs001754.v4.p2) or via spit4science@vcu.edu to qualified researchers who provide the appropriate signed data use agreement. We would like to thank Dr. Danielle Dick for founding and directing the Spit for Science Registry from 2011–2022, and the Spit for Science participants for making this study a success, as well as the many University faculty, students, and staff who contributed to the design and implementation of the project.

We would also like to acknowledge The Minoritized Ethnic and Racial Students’ Experiences Working Group: The Minoritized Ethnic and Racial Students’ Experiences Working Group: Active Members: Oswaldo Moreno (Chair) Chelsea D. Williams (Former Chair), Diamond Y. Bravo, Karen G. Chartier, Natese Dockery, Maria J. Elias, Lisa Fuentes, Isis Garcia-Rodriguez, Cindy Hernandez, Terrell A. Hicks, Kristina B. Hood, Kaprea F. Johnson, Jasmine Lewis, Tanya Middleton, Benjamin Montemayor, Geovani Muñoz, Rumbidzai Mushunje, Roseann E. Peterson, & Arlenis Santana; Former Members: Ashlynn Bell, Eryn N. DeLaney, Sneha Gade, Chaz Goodman, William Gordon, Sydney Judge, Diamond Reese, & Jennifer Rodriguez, & Chloe J. Walker.

Senior authors responsible for funding and overarching program direction for Spit for Science COVID-19-related research

References

  1. Aiken LS, & West SG (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen J, Robbins SB, Casillas A, & Oh IS (2008). Third-year college retention and transfer: Effects of academic performance, motivation, and social connectedness. Research in Higher Education, 49(7), 647–664. 10.1007/s11162-008-9098-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arbuckle JL (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In Marcoulides GA & Schumacker RE (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243–277). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  4. Astin AW (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308. [Google Scholar]
  5. Barbayannis G, Bandari M, Zheng X, Baquerizo H, Pecor K, & Ming X (2022). Academic stress and mental well-being in college students: correlations, affected groups, and COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 2464. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.886344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Byrd CM, & Chavous TM (2009). Racial identity and academic achievement in the neighborhood context: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 544–559. 10.1007/s10964-008-9381-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cadenas GA, Liu L, Li KM, & Beachy S (2022). Promoting critical consciousness, academic performance, and persistence among graduate students experiencing class-based oppression. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(1), 26. 10.1037/dhe0000250 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carver CS, & Connor-Smith J (2010). Personality and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679–704. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Clabaugh A, Duque JF, & Fields LJ (2021). Academic stress and emotional well-being in United States college students following onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in psychology, 765. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.628787 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Clarke. (2020). Children’s well-being and their academic achievement: The dangerous discourse of “trade-offs” in education. Theory and Research in Education, 18(3), 263–294. 10.1177/1477878520980197 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis CR, Hartman H, Turner M, Norton T, Sexton J, Méndez D, & Méndez J (2021). “Listen to the Feedback of Students”: First-Generation College Students Voice Inequalities in Schooling Brought on by the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 0(0). 10.1177/15210251211066302 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dick DM, Nasim A, Edwards AC, Salvatore JE, Cho SB, Adkins A, Meyers J, Yan J, Cooke M, Clifford J, Goyal N, Halberstadt L, Ailstock K, Neale Z, Opalesky J, Hancock L, Donovan KK, Sun C, Riley B, & Kendler KS (2014). Spit for Science: Launching a longitudinal study of genetic and environmental influences on substance use and emotional health at a large US university. Frontiers in Genetics, 5, 1–12. 10.3389/fgene.2014.00047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dorn E, Hancock B, Sarakatsannis J, & Viruleg E (2020). COVID-19 and student learning in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime. McKinsey & Company, 1, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  14. Duff A, Boyle E, Dunleavy K, & Ferguson J (2004). The relationship between personality, approach to learning and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8), 1907–1920. 10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Elger D (2007). Theory of performance. In Beyerlein SW, Holmes C, & Apple DK(Eds.), Faculty guidebook: A comprehensive tool for improving faculty performance (4th ed.) [Google Scholar]
  16. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, & Lang A (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Freire P (2020). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Toward a sociology of education (pp. 374–386). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fruehwirth JC, Biswas S, Perreira KM (2021). The Covid-19 pandemic and mental health of first-year college students: Examining the effect of Covid-19 stressors using longitudinal data. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0247999. 10.1371/journal.pone.0247999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gatzka T, & Hell B (2018). Openness and postsecondary academic performance: A meta-analysis of facet-, aspect-, and dimension-level correlations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 355. 10.1037/edu0000194 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gehringer TA, Folberg AM, & Ryan CS (2021). The relationships of belonging and task socialization to GPA and intentions to re-enroll as a function of race/ethnicity and first-generation college student status. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gist-Mackey AN, Wiley ML, & Erba J (2018). “You’re doing great. Keep doing what you’re doing”: socially supportive communication during first-generation college students’ socialization. Communication Education, 67(1), 52–72. 10.1080/03634523.2017.1390590 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gillen-O’Neel C (2021). Sense of belonging and student engagement: A daily study of first-and continuing-generation college students. Research in Higher Education, 62(1), 45–71. 10.1007/s11162-019-09570-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, & Conde JG (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377–381. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. House LA, Neal C, & Kolb J (2020). Supporting the mental health needs of first generation college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 34(2), 157–167. 10.1080/87568225.2019.1578940 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Howell AJ (2009). Flourishing: Achievement-related correlates of students’ well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 1–13. 10.1080/17439760802043459 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ives J, & Castillo-Montoya M (2020). First-generation college students as academic learners: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 139–178. 10.3102/0034654319899707 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. James N, & Thériault V (2020). Adult education in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Inequalities, changes, and resilience. Studies in the Education of Adults, 52(2), 129–133. [Google Scholar]
  29. Karyotaki E, Cuijpers P, Albor Y, Alonso J, Auerbach RP, Bantjes J, … & Kessler RC (2020). Sources of stress and their associations with mental disorders among college students: Results of the world health organization world mental health surveys international college student initiative. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1759. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Keyes CL (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 539. 10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Keyes CL, Eisenberg D, Perry GS, Dube SR, Kroenke K, & Dhingra SS (2012). The relationship of level of positive mental health with current mental disorders in predicting suicidal behavior and academic impairment in college students. Journal of American College Health, 60(2), 126–133. 10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.539 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Keyes CLM (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 121–140. 10.2307/2787065 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Knoesen R, & Naudé L (2018). Experiences of flourishing and languishing during the first year at university. Journal of Mental Health, 27(3), 269–278. 10.1080/09638237.2017.1370635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lamers SMA, Westerhof GJ, Bohlmeijer ET, ten Klooster PM, & Keyes CLM (2011). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum-short form (MHC-SF). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 99–110. 10.1002/jclp.20741 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Latino CA, Stegmann G, Radunzel J, Way JD, Sanchez E, & Casillas A (2020). Reducing gaps in first-year outcomes between Hispanic first-generation college students and their peers: The role of accelerated learning and financial aid. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 22(3), 441–463. 10.1177/1521025118768055 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lazarus RS, & Folkman S (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lederer AM, Hoban MT, Lipson SK, Zhou S, & Eisenberg D (2021). More than inconvenienced: The unique needs of US college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Education & Behavior, 48(1), 14–19. 10.1177/1090198120969372 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Li P, Yang J, Zhou Z, Zhao Z, & Liu T (2022). The influence of college students’ academic stressors on mental health during COVID-19: The mediating effect of social support, social well-being, and self-identity. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.917581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Little TD, Preacher KJ, Selig JP, & Card NA (2007). New developments in latent variable panel analyses of longitudinal data. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(4), 357–365. 10.1177/0165025407077757 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lyubomirsky S, King L, & Diener E (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McCallen LS, & Johnson HL (2020). The role of institutional agents in promoting higher education success among first-generation college students at a public urban university. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(4), 320. 10.1037/dhe0000143 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Mello ZR, Mallett RK, Andretta JR, & Worrell FC (2012). Stereotype threat and school belonging in adolescents from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 17(1), 9–14. [Google Scholar]
  43. Monninger, Pollok TM, Aggensteiner P-M, Kaiser A, Reinhard I, Hermann A, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Brandeis D, Banaschewski T, & Holz NE (2022). Coping under stress: Prefrontal control predicts stress burden during the COVID-19 crisis. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 56, 13–23. 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.11.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Moussa NM, & Ali WF (2022). Exploring the relationship between students’ academic success and happiness levels in the higher education settings during the lockdown period of COVID-19. Psychological Reports, 125(2), 986–1010. 10.1177/0033294121994568 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (2019). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables; user’s guide;[version 8.4]. Muthén et Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pascoe MC, Hetrick SE, & Parker AG (2020). The impact of stress on students in secondary school and higher education. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 104–112. 10.1080/02673843.2019.1596823 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pedrelli P, Nyer M, Yeung A, Zulauf C, & Wilens T (2015). College students: mental health problems and treatment considerations. Academic Psychiatry, 39(5), 503–511. 10.1007/s40596-014-0205-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, & Bauer DJ (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. 10.3102/10769986031004437 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Reuge N, Jenkins R, Brossard M, Soobrayan B, Mizunoya S, Ackers J, … & Taulo WG (2021). Education response to COVID 19 pandemic, a special issue proposed by UNICEF: Editorial review. International Journal of Educational Development, 87, 102485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Robbins SB, Lauver K, Le H, Davis D, Langley R, & Carlstrom A (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Rode JC, Arthaud-Day ML, Mooney CH, Near JP, Baldwin TT, Bommer WH, & Rubin RS (2005). Life satisfaction and student performance.Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(4), 421–433. 10.5465/amle.2005.19086784 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ryff CD (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Schuyler SW, Childs JR, & Poynton TA (2021). Promoting success for first-generation students of color: The importance of academic, transitional adjustment, and mental health supports. Journal of College Access, 6(1), 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  54. Seligman ME (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schuster. [Google Scholar]
  55. Son C, Hegde S, Smith A, Wang X, & Sasangohar F (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on college students’ mental health in the United States: Interview survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), e21279. 10.2196/21279 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Soria KM, Horgos B, & Shenouda JD (2022). Disparities in college students’ financial hardships during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  57. Stephens NM, Fryberg SA, Markus HR, Johnson CS, & Covarrubias R (2012). Unseen disadvantage: how American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178. 10.1037/a0027143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Stevens C, Liu CH, & Chen JA (2018). Racial/ethnic disparities in US college students’ experience: Discrimination as an impediment to academic performance. Journal of American College Health, 66(7), 665–673. 10.1080/07448481.2018.1452745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Strayhorn TL (2018). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  60. Tasso AF, Hisli Sahin N, & San Roman GJ (2021). COVID-19 disruption on college students: Academic and socioemotional implications. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 13(1), 9. 10.1037/tra0000996 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Trammell JP, Joseph NT, & Harriger JA (2021). Racial and ethnic minority disparities in COVID-19 related health, health beliefs and behaviors, and well-being among students. Journal of American College Health, 71(1), 242. 10.1080/07448481.2021.1890606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Wang X, Hegde S, Son C, Keller B, Smith A, & Sasangohar F (2020). Investigating mental health of US college students during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), e22817. 10.2196/22817 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Yang N, & Yang X (2022). Anxiety and depression in graduating university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Translational Research, 14(4), 2668. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Material
NIHMS1946036-supplement-Supplemental_Material.pdf (131.5KB, pdf)

RESOURCES