Next Article in Journal
Identifying Emissions Reduction Opportunities in International Bilateral Emissions Trading Systems to Achieve China’s Energy Sector NDCs
Previous Article in Journal
Fibromyalgia, Pain, and Physical Activity: A Bibliometric Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 2
10.3390/ijerph20021334
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

What Matters on Rural Left-Behind Children’s Problem Behavior: Family Socioeconomic Status or Perceived Discrimination

by
Wangqian Fu
1,*,
Rui Xue
2,
Hongqin Chai
2,
Wenxiang Sun
3 and
Fangrui Jiang
1
1
Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
2
School of Education, Beijing Sport University, Beijing 100091, China
3
Social Science Division, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(2), 1334; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021334
Submission received: 2 November 2022 / Revised: 30 December 2022 / Accepted: 6 January 2023 / Published: 11 January 2023
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the acceleration of China’s industrialization and urbanization, there is a large number of left-behind children in China who are reported with more challenges in development. The study aims to analyze the differences in family socioeconomic status (SES) and discrimination perception between left-behind children and non-left-behind children and further explore whether SES or discrimination perception has a greater impact on the problem behaviors of left-behind children. We found the family SES of left-behind children was significantly lower than that of non-left-behind children; left-behind children’s perceived discrimination was significantly higher than that of non-left-behind children; perceived discrimination of left-behind children had a greater impact on their problem behavior than the family SES.

1. Introduction

With the acceleration of China’s industrialization and urbanization, a large number of rural labor force flows into cities, resulting in the emergence of left-behind children whose parents left for urban employment and higher income. The left-behind children refer to children under 16 years old who are left in their hometown because both or one of their parents is working, doing business, or studying outside and need to be taken care of by other relatives, friends, and teachers [1]. Left-behind children have been reported to be subjects of various social and psychological problems, including depression, anxiety, suicidal idealization, substance use, and delinquency [2]. Being left behind has shown a consistently negative impact on mental health through primary school and middle school [3]. As left-behind children enter their adolescence, a crucial period for self-concept development, their disadvantage in social adaptation becomes even more salient [4].

1.1. Family Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Left-Behind Children’s Problem Behavior

Poverty is a fundamental risk factor leading to left-behind adolescents’ negative developmental outcomes. Viewing poverty as a multi-dimensional concept, this study uses SES to measure it. Family SES generally includes parents’ occupation, education level, and family income. Low SES is thus linked to multiple social and psychological mechanisms leading to children’s disadvantage. Aside from the direct economic hardship, stressful living environment, fragile family structure, and restricted parental mental resources are all consequences of low SES that lead to children’s long-term academic failure and behavioral problems [5,6,7] and diminished psychological well-being [8,9,10,11]. It has also been found that the effect of income poverty, subjective felt financial stress, and material hardship can be cumulative, and the detrimental impact of low SES on children’s problem behavior is largest with those factors combined [12,13,14]. Adolescents’ self-esteem has also been found to be diminished by poverty, and the relationship is partly mediated by relational peer bullying, which suggests that poverty cause a loss of power in social interaction and, in turn, affects self-esteem [15,16].
Seeking higher income is the primary motivation for rural parents to migrate, and households with left-behind children are characterized by low parental education levels and monthly income [3,17]. Thus, living in socially and economically disadvantaged rural areas with often unstable family structures and stress caused by inadequate family care performed by often over-aged and low-educated caregivers [18,19], left-behind adolescents are likely to be victims of such cumulative negative effects of low family SES. Indeed, studies on left-behind children in China have shown that due to low family SES, parents lack time, energy, and money to fully participate in children’s lives, and children are thus faced with difficulty in getting the necessary resources for them to succeed, which in turn causes low self-esteem [20,21]. Caregivers’ low SES is significantly associated with adolescents’ emotional and conduct problems [22]. Low family SES has also been found to be associated with non-suicidal self-injury behaviors as well as the risk of suicide mediated by increased peer bullying among left-behind children [23,24].

1.2. Discrimination and Left-Behind Children’s Problem Behavior

Discrimination is another salient risk factor for children’s self-esteem and problem behaviors. Two theoretical frameworks supported understanding the association between perceived discrimination with self-esteem and problem behaviors. The symbolic interactionist perspective indicates that perceived negative social evaluation lead adolescents to internalize negative self-image and show a corresponding behavioral reaction. For example, adolescents’ reflected appraisals from parents and peers are significantly associated with self-concept and, in turn, have a salient impact on delinquent behaviors [25]. The social comparison perspective, on the other hand, indicates that the awareness of the unjust treatment received by one’s group, compared to an adjacent reference group, will result in the cognitive construction of an inferior social position and corresponding emotional reaction of resentment, which in turn lead to individual or collective strategies of changing the status quo [26]. The phenomenon of left-behind adolescents is itself a direct result of discriminatory institutional arrangements preventing the rural population from enjoying the social resources in cities [18]. Therefore, it is hardly possible for left-behind adolescents to get rid of their disadvantaged identity, and perceived discrimination may thus result in diminished self-esteem and maladaptive behavioral reactions as a response to the stress caused by unfavorable social comparison and negative self-image.
Dozens of studies found that perceived discrimination was positively associated with problem behaviors in multiple groups of disadvantaged children and adolescents [27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Taken together, ample empirical evidence suggests that perceived discrimination cause developing minds to form negative self-images and conceptualization of the social environment as hostile to one’s inferior social identity, which in turn led to diminished self-esteem and increased problem behavior. A more recent study found that perceived discrimination against the group identity as migrant children has a significant correlation with the subject’s antisocial behavior as well as self-esteem, which mediated the relationship between discrimination and antisocial behavior [34]. Both quantitative and qualitative data suggested that left-behind children tend to attribute other’s discriminatory attitudes to their parents’ absence [35] and form extreme attacking or avoiding behavioral patterns in social interaction as a response to felt stress [36,37]. Perceived discrimination is associated with children’s problem behavior and limited ability to seek and utilize social support [38,39,40].

1.3. The Current Study

There are a large number of left-behind children in China, and more and more studies focus on the development of this group of children, especially what factors influence their problem behaviors. Differences in SES provide more information about environmental inequities [12], while certain complexities exist in this picture. One recent meta-analysis showed that family SES is negatively related to internalized problem behaviors, while the relationship may not be linear-dependent since problem behavior may exist with children enjoying higher SES may exhibit equally heightened problem behaviors [14]. Thus, the exact role of low family SES in left-behind children’s problem behaviors needs further investigation. In addition, the awareness of a “left-behind” identity fueled by discrimination leads to hypersensitivity to adversity in a social environment and results in distorted social functioning in left-behind children [40]. Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine whether perceived discrimination has a more important effect on left-behind children’s problem behavior. The study aims to analyze the differences in SES and discrimination perception between left-behind children and non-left-behind children and further explore whether SES or discrimination perception has a greater impact on the problem behaviors of left-behind children. It will help to understand the causes of problem behaviors of left-behind children, put forward feasible suggestions, promote the social adaptation of left-behind children, and play a certain role in avoiding the occurrence of problem behaviors.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and Procedures

Voluntary sampling was applied in the study. We contacted principals of elementary and secondary rural schools in Henan province to obtain permission to deliver the questionnaires to students. A total of 9 schools were willing to participate, and 473 students in grades 5–9 took part in the survey. All participants provided informed consent and were told that they were willing to participate and could withdraw at any time. Cattell (1978) believed this ratio of sample size and the number of variable items should be in the range of 3 to 6 [41]. To meet the criterion, the sample size should be more than 300 (with 10% invalid questionnaires in assumption) in the study. A total of 473 questionnaires were distributed, and 473 questionnaires were collected. After removing questionnaires with incomplete repeated answers and missing answers of more than 30%, 438 valid questionnaires were left, and the effective rate was 92.60%. The average age of the participants was 10.48 years old, and the standard deviation was 1.286 years old. There were 284 left-behind children, accounting for 64.8%, and 154 non-left-behind children, accounting for 35.2%. The demographic information of the participants is shown in Table 1.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Family Socioeconomic Status

Family Socioeconomic Status (family SES) was measured by the education level of parents, parental occupation type, and family monthly income [42,43], which was self-reported by the participants. The educational level of parents was divided into six grades, from “primary school” to “master or above”, with a score of 1–6, respectively. The parents’ occupation type was divided into five grades: “1 = temporary workers, unemployed workers, unskilled and agricultural workers”, “5 = professional senior managers, senior professional and technical personnel, professional supervisors”, with a score of 1–5, respectively. Family monthly income from “less than 1000 RMB” to “more than 30,000 RMB” was assigned a score of 1–6. Finally, the parent’s education level, occupation type, and family monthly income score was converted into standard scores. Then principal component analysis was performed, and the score of family SES was calculated according to the following formula [44]: SES = (β1 × Z education level of parents +β2 × Z parental occupation type +β3 × Z family monthly income)/f. β1, β2, and β3 were factor loadings, f was the eigenvalue, and the higher the score, the higher the socioeconomic status of the family.

2.2.2. Perceived Discrimination

The perceived discrimination questionnaire for left-behind children developed by Fu et al. (2016) was used [36]. The detailed process of developing the Chinese discrimination perceptions of left-behind children Scale was shown in Fu et al.’s study [45]. The scale consisted of four dimensions: attack (e.g., “Some people express some prejudices about left-behind children in front of me.”), behavior discrimination (e.g., “When I am in difficulty, there will be some problems when I go to relatives or friends of my parents for help“), avoidance (e.g., “because my father or mother is not around, others are not willing to talk to me”), and speech discrimination (e.g., “Some people express some prejudices about left-behind children in front of me.”), with a total of 20 items. The scale was scored on a four-point scale, with 1 = “no” and 4 = “often”. The higher the score, the higher the degree of discrimination experienced by left-behind children. In this study, the internal consistency coefficient of the scale was excellent (α = 0.853), and the fitting index of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was good (χ2/df = 2.132, GFI = 0.931, AGFI = 0.906, RMSEA = 0.051), representing good reliability and validity of the scale.

2.2.3. Problem Behavior

The adolescent behavior self-assessment questionnaire compiled by Cui was used to measure the problem behavior of the participants [46]. The questionnaire consisted of six dimensions: learning maladaptation (e.g., “being easily distracted or unfocused”), aggressive behavior (e.g., “impulsive or rude behavior, hitting people”), disciplinary violation behavior (e.g., “disobedience, homework copying, smoking”), withdrawals (e.g., “not associating with classmates and always trying to avoid difficulties”), neuroticism (e.g., “sullen, sad, depressed, and feeling that someone is making fun of you”), and exam anxiety (e.g., “not sleeping well the day before the test, and nervous when hearing of the test”), with a total of 60 items. The questionnaire adopted a four-point Likert scale (from 1 = no to 4 = often). The higher the score, the more problem behaviors the subjects had. In this study, the internal consistency coefficient of the scale was excellent (α = 0.957), and the fitting index of CFA was good (χ2/df = 2.190, GFI = 0.968, AGFI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.071), indicating the scale has good reliability and validity.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

We used SPSS26.0 software for data statistics and analysis in this study. Firstly, descriptive statistics of demographic information such as gender and grade were carried out. Secondly, the independent-samples t-test was used to compare the family SES, perceived discrimination, and problem behavior between left-behind children and non-left-behind children. Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the correlation between family SES, perceived discrimination, and problem behavior of left-behind children and non-left-behind children. Finally, regression analysis was used to explore the impact of family SES and perceived discrimination on children’s problem behavior, and the magnitude of the impact was compared.

3. Result

3.1. Family SES with Left-Behind and Non-Left-Behind Children

The participants were divided into left-behind children and non-left-behind children, and the family SES of the two groups was compared by t-test. It could be seen that, in general, the family SES of left-behind children (M = 7.59, SD = 2.16) was significantly lower than that of non-left-behind children (M = 8.31, SD = 2.42) (t = −3.189, p < 0.01).

3.2. Comparison of Perceived Discrimination and Problem Behavior between Left-Behind and Non-Left-Behind Children

The perceived discrimination of left-behind children and non-left-behind children was compared by t-test. In general, left-behind children’s perceived discrimination was significantly higher than that of non-left-behind children (t = 2.879, p < 0.01).
The problem behavior and its subscales of left-behind children and non-left-behind children were compared by multivariate analysis, and the results are shown in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, there was no significant difference in problem behavior between left-behind children and non-left-behind children. However, the comparative analysis of all dimensions of problem behaviors between left-behind children and non-left-behind children showed that left-behind children had significantly more disciplinary violation behaviors than non-left-behind children (F = 4.873, p < 0.05), while there was no significant difference in learning maladaptation, aggressive behavior, withdrawals, neuroticism and exam anxiety.

3.3. Relationships between Family SES, Perceived Discrimination, and Problem Behavior of Left-Behind and Non-Left-Behind Children

Pearson correlation analysis was conducted on family SES, perceived discrimination, and problem behavior of left-behind children and non-left-behind children, respectively, and the results are shown in Table 3.
It could be seen that there was no significant correlation between family SES and perceived discrimination in different groups of children, while perceived discrimination was significantly positively correlated with problem behavior in both groups (r = 0.333, p < 0.01; r = 0.212, p < 0.01). The family SES of left-behind children was negatively correlated with problem behavior (r = −0.124, p < 0.05). However, there was no significant correlation between family SES and problem behavior of non-left-behind children.

3.4. Association of Family SES and Perceived Discrimination with Problem Behavior of Left-Behind and Non-Left-Behind Children

To further explore the influence of family SES and perceived discrimination on children’s problem behavior, the gender, age, and grade of the subjects were controlled, and the regression analysis was conducted with family SES and perceived discrimination as independent variables and problem behavior as a dependent variable, respectively. The results are shown in Table 4.
It could be seen that the family SES of left-behind children and non-left-behind children had no significant association with problem behavior. The perceived discrimination of both groups had a significant positive association with problem behavior (β = 0.335, p < 0.001; β = 0.211, p < 0.01). The standardized regression coefficient can be used to compare the relationships between different independent variables on dependent variables. The larger the coefficient value is, the greater the effect will be [47]. The regression equation standardization coefficient of perceived discrimination with problem behavior was higher, indicating that the perceived discrimination of left-behind children had a greater association with their problem behavior than the family SES.

4. Discussion

4.1. What Does a Lower Family SES Mean for Children

The results of this study showed that the family SES of left-behind children was significantly lower than that of non-left-behind children, which was consistent with the results of previous studies [44]. When the family’s SES was low, and the local salary could not meet the needs of the family, the parents needed to go out to work to support the family. When parents go out to work, they have to control their expenses by eating and living together with their colleagues and leaving their children at home could reduce the cost of renting, which resulted in the “left-behind” situation of their children [48].

4.2. Left-Behind Children Have Higher Perceived Discrimination and Disciplinary Violation

The results of this study showed that left-behind children’s perceived discrimination and disciplinary violation were significantly higher than those of non-left-behind children, which was consistent with the results of relevant studies [49,50,51]. Compared with children in normal situations, left-behind children certainly affected their psychological development and externalizing behaviors, making their psychological development relatively poor and showing more external problem behaviors. First of all, the higher perceived discrimination of left-behind children could be caused by two factors. First, affected by parent-child separation, left-behind children are often very insecure [52], and the lack of security would make left-behind children increase their awareness of aggressive behaviors (such as fear of being bullied by others). Second, left-behind children were “stigmatized”. Studies have pointed out that school administrators, teachers, and the people who lived beside left-behind children, as well as some researchers, exaggerate the remaining negative effect; left-behind children “stigmatized” tended to be more apparent, which could lead to a companion of left-behind children bias, treated unfairly, which caused the “stigmatized” left-behind children had a higher perception of discrimination [53]. Secondly, in terms of disciplinary violation, the parents of left-behind children worked abroad for a long time. They lacked care for their children, which was an important factor for left-behind children’s disciplinary behaviors. Empirical studies have pointed out that parental warmth could negatively predict children’s disciplinary behaviors. The higher the level of warmth, the fewer children’s disciplinary behaviors [54]. Moreover, insufficient warmth to children would make them feel more negative emotions, which were specifically manifested in sensitivity, inferiority, anxiety, depression, etc. [55,56]. Depression was considered to be the cause of disciplinary violation behavior by the acting out theory [57]. The Coercion Model also suggested that poor parenting, such as lack of love and discipline, reinforced the Coercion behavior in early adolescence, leading to more Coercion [58]. Left-behind children might hope to attract the attention of their parents through their disciplinary violation behaviors so that they could get more care and attention.

4.3. The Impact of Perceived Discrimination on Left-Behind Children Was More Noteworthy Than That of Family SES

In this study, problem behavior was taken as the dependent variable to explore the predictive effects of family SES and perceived discrimination. The results showed that perceived discrimination had a significant predictive effect on problem behavior, and perceived discrimination of left-behind children has a greater impact on their problem behavior than family SES.
Firstly, this study found that there was no significant correlation between children’s family SES and perceived discrimination. It was consistent with the research results of Romero and Roberts [59]. When the economic level reaches a certain level, the perceived discrimination caused by family SES decreases, and the correlation between them also decreases.
Secondly, in the group of left-behind children, there was a significant negative correlation between family SES and problem behavior, which was consistent with the results of previous studies [60,61,62,63]. The lower the family SES, the more problem behavior children had. According to the Ecological System Theory proposed by Bronfenbrenner, individual development was nested in a series of interacting environmental systems. As one of the main environments for children’s development, the family has an important influence on individual development. The education level and occupation level of parents of left-behind children were generally low and left-behind children were exposed to a higher risk of family SES. Left-behind children living in low SES lack supervision from their parents. Supervision from grandparents or other guardians was mostly limited to the living level, and the lack of favorable supervision of children’s learning and behavior and effective psychological guidance led to social adaptation problems for left-behind children [64]. Externalizing behavior was more likely to show learning maladaptation, disciplinary violation behavior, aggressive behavior, and other problems.
In addition, this study found that perceived discrimination had a greater impact on problem behaviors than family SES; that was, the impact of perceived discrimination on problem behaviors of left-behind children was more noteworthy than family SES. Low family SES to a certain extent, certainly made the development of the children a certain risk, but this did not have the inevitability of risk, its action mechanism tended to adjust by other factors, such as parents’ upbringing, community environment, and so on [65], and this risk was primarily a children’s psychological change of consciousness, such as higher levels of depression, loneliness, social anxiety, etc. [66], which did not directly lead to problem behavior in children. The generation of children’s problem behavior was mainly due to the accumulation of various risk factors, which strengthened the adverse effect of another risk factor and led to children’s negative psychological problems. These risk factors included various stressful life events, traumatic events, and the accumulation of pressure on the individual and the environment [67]. Left-behind children had higher perceived discrimination, which led to a long-term stressful experience. Negative external stimuli were more likely to turn into risk factors and accumulate continuously, eventually leading to problem behavior of left-behind children. It was difficult for educators to change the family SES of left-behind children so as to reduce their negative effects. However, they could take positive measures from the aspects of educational concepts and methods to reduce the perceived discrimination of left-behind children and pay attention to the healthy psychological development of left-behind children so as to reduce the occurrence of problem behavior.

5. Conclusions

The study analyzed the association of SES and discrimination perception and problem behavior for rural left-behind children and non-left-behind children in China. Thes study found that there was no significant correlation between family SES and discrimination perception in different groups of children, while discrimination perception was significantly positively correlated with problem behavior in both groups. The family SES of left-behind children was negatively correlated with problem behavior. However, there was no significant correlation between family SES and problem behavior of non-left-behind children. The family SES of left-behind children and non-left-behind children had no significant association with problem behavior. The discrimination perception of both groups had a significant positive association with problem behavior. Regression analysis found the discrimination perception of left-behind children had a higher association with their problem behavior than the family SES. Therefore, educators should take strategies to alleviate left-behind children’s discrimination perception, which is helpful to reduce their problem behaviors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.F.; Data curation, R.X. and H.C.; Formal analysis, H.C.; Funding acquisition, W.F.; Investigation, W.F. and W.S.; Methodology, W.S.; Writing—original draft, W.F., R.X., H.C. and F.J.; Writing—review & editing, W.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by Grant No. 20YJC880015 from the Department of Social Sciences, Ministry of Education, of China.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Consent was obtained from all participants in the study. No official ethics approval number was provided since the ethic committee in the department of our university was yet to be formed at the time of collecting the data.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from the participants and their parents by the help of their teachers, which was delivered and collected with the questionnaire together.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wu, N. Survey Report on left-behind children in rural areas. Edu. Res. 2004, 10, 15–18+53. [Google Scholar]
  2. Fellmeth, G.; Rose-Clarke, K.; Zhao, C.; Busert, L.K.; Zheng, Y.; Massazza, A.; Sonmez, H.; Eder, B.; Blewitt, A.; Lertgrai, W.; et al. Health impacts of parental migration on left-behind children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2018, 392, 2567–2582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Chang, F.; Shi, Y.; Shen, A.; Kohrman, A.; Li, K.; Wan, Q.; Kenny, K.; Rozelle, S. Understanding the Situation of China’s Left-Behind Children: A Mixed-Methods Analysis. Dev. Econ. 2019, 57, 3–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Zhang, J.; Yan, L.; Qiu, H.; Dai, B. Social adaptation of Chinese left-behind children: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2018, 95, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Raver, C.; Roy, A.; Pressler, E.; Ursache, A.; Charles McCoy, D. Poverty-Related Adversity and Emotion Regulation Predict Internalizing Behavior Problems among Low-Income Children Ages 8–11. Behav. Sci. 2016, 7, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Mcfarland, M.J. Poverty and Problem Behaviors across the Early Life Course: The Role of Sensitive Period Exposure. Pop. Res. Pol. Rev 2017, 36, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Simons, L.G.; Wickrama, K.A.S.; Lee, T.K.; Landers-Potts, M.; Cutrona, C.; Conger, R.D. Testing Family Stress and Family Investment Explanations for Conduct Problems among African American Adolescents. J. Marriage Fam. 2016, 78, 498–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, J.; Xiao, H.; Liu, X. The Impact of Social Capital on Multidimensional Poverty of Rural Households in China. Inter. J. Envir. Res. Pub. Health 2023, 20, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kalil, A.; Ryan, R. Parenting Practices and Socioeconomic Gaps in Childhood Outcomes. Future Child. 2020, 30, 29–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sosu, E.M.; Schmidt, P. Economic Deprivation and Its Effects on Childhood Conduct Problems: The Mediating Role of Family Stress and Investment Factors. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Hu, H.; Zhu, X.; Jiang, H.; Li, Y.; Jiang, H.; Zheng, P.; Zhang, C.; Shang, J. The association and mediating mechanism between poverty and poly-victimization of left-behind children in rural china. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2018, 91, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schenck-Fontaine, A.; Panico, L. Many Kinds of Poverty: Three Dimensions of Economic Hardship, Their Combinations, and Children’s Behavior Problems. Demography 2019, 56, 2279–2305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Luo, S.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, D.J. Socioeconomic status and young children’s problem behaviours–Mediating effects of parenting style and psychological suzhi. Early Child Dev. Care 2019, 191, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lee, D.W.; Shin, J.; Choi, D.-W.; Kim, K.; Park, E.-C. Effects of Household Income Change on Children’s Problem Behavior: Findings From a Longitudinal Study. J. Adolesc. Health 2019, 65, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jiang, S. Psychological well-being and distress in adolescents: An investigation into associations with poverty, peer victimization, and self-esteem. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 111, 104824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cheung, R.Y.M.; Leung, M.C.; Chung, K.K.H.; Cheung, H.Y. Family Risks and Adolescent Adjustment in Chinese Contexts: Testing the Mediating Role of Emotional Intelligence. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018, 27, 3887–3896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tong Yan, Q.; Kawachi, I. The factors associated with being left-behind children in China: Multilevel analysis with nationally representative data. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0224205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Biao, X. How far are the left-behind left behind? A preliminary study in rural China. Popul. Space Place 2007, 13, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, Y.H.; Zhao, C.X.; Gao, Y.J.; Han, L.Z.; Huang, X.N.; Pediatrics, D.O. Influencing factors of psychological and behavioral development of left-behind children under 3 years old in poor rural in China. Chin. J. Child Health Care 2019, 27, 941–944. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhou, C.Y.; Wan, L.J.; Song, J.J.; Huang, H.; Li, L.; Liu, D.L. Family Socioeconomic Status and Children’s Self-esteem: Mediating of Parental Involvement. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2018, 26, 1186–1190. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ouyang, Z.; Fan, X.H. Family ses and psychological capital and self-esteem among left-behind children. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2018, 26, 1182–1185. [Google Scholar]
  22. Fan, F.; Su, L.; Gill, M.K.; Birmaher, B. Emotional and behavioral problems of Chinese left-behind children: A preliminary study. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2009, 45, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Wang, Q.; Liu, X. Peer Victimization and Nonsuicidal Self-Injury Among Chinese Left-Behind Children: The Moderating Roles of Subjective Socioeconomic Status and Social Support. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 36, 11165–11187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, B.; Hu, T.; Tang, W. The effects of peer bullying and poverty on suicidality in Chinese left behind adolescents: The mediating role of psychotic-like experiences. Early Interv. Psychiatry 2022, 16, 1217–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brownfield, D.; Thompson, K. Self-concept and delinquency: The effects of reflected appraisals by parent and peers. West. Criminol. Rev. 2005, 6, 22–29. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mummendey, A.; Kessler, T.; Klink, A.; Mielke, R. Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 76, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lan, X.; Scrimin, S.; Moscardino, U. Emotional Awareness Moderates the Association Between Discrimination and Emotional-Behavioral Problems: A Cross-Informant Study in Chinese Rural-to-Urban Migrant Youth. J. Early Adolesc. 2019, 40, 857–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Doğan, A.; Strohmeier, D. The Role of Discrimination, Acculturation, and Ethnic Identity in Predicting Psychosocial Functioning of Turkish Immigrant Youth. In Contextualizing Immigrant and Refugee Resilience. Advances in Immigrant Family Research; Güngör, D., Strohmeier, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, X.; Xie, T.; Li, W.; Tao, Y.; Liang, P.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, J. The relationship between perceived discrimination and wellbeing in impoverished college students: A moderated mediation model of self-esteem and belief in a just world. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kirkinis, K.; Pieterse, A.L.; Martin, C.; Agiliga, A.U.; Brownell, A. Racism, racial discrimination, and trauma: A systematic review of the social science literature. Ethn. Health 2018, 26, 392–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Martin-Storey, A.; Benner, A. Externalizing Behaviors Exacerbate the Link between Discrimination and Adolescent Health Risk Behaviors. J. Youth Adolesc. 2019, 48, 1724–1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zeiders, K.H.; Umaña-Taylor, A.J.; Derlan, C.L. Trajectories of depressive symptoms and self-esteem in Latino youths: Examining the role of gender and perceived discrimination. Dev. Psychol. 2013, 49, 951–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Yang, T.-C.; Chen, I.-C.; Choi, S.; Kurtulus, A. Linking perceived discrimination during adolescence to health during mid-adulthood: Self-esteem and risk-behavior mechanisms. Soc. Sci. Med. 2018, 232, 434–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Jia, X.; Li, Y.; Su, P.; Liu, X.; Lin, D. Collective and personal self-esteem as mediators between perceived group discrimination and adjustment in Chinese migrant children. PsyCh J. 2020, 9, 651–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hu, Y.; Lonne, B.; Burton, J. The social exclusion of children left behind in China. Asia Pac. J. Soc. Work. Dev. 2016, 26, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fu, W.Q.; Zhang, L.; Wang, D. The Discrimination Perceived by Left-at-Home Lower Secondary School Students in Rural Areas and Its Relationship with Their Problem Behaviors:the Mediating Effect of Social Support. Chin. J. Spec. Educ. 2016, 1, 42–47. [Google Scholar]
  37. Zhang, L.; Fu, W.Q.; Wang, D.; Bao, Z.G. The Discrimination Perception and Problem Behaviors of Children Left-behind in the Middle School—A Qualitative Study. Chin. J. Spec. Educ. 2015, 181, 53–59. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fu, W.Q.; Tang, W.; Huang, X.; Xie, Y. The influence of perceived discrimination of left-behind children in junior high school on the problem behavior: The chain mediating effect of self esteem and social support. J. Sch. Stud. 2017, 14, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, S.; Xie, F. The Impact of Perceived Personal Discrimination on Problem Behavior of Left-Behind Children: A Moderated Mediating Effect Model. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2021, 52, 709–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhao, J.; Wang, Q.; Xue, X. The longitudinal associations among perceived discrimination, social initiative, and depressive symptoms in Chinese rural left-behind adolescents. J. Adolesc. 2020, 81, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cattell, R.B. The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gai, X.S.; Wu, X.L.; Gu, T.Y.; Ma, Y.C. The Predictive Role of Socioeconomic Status and Positive Qualities on Middle School Students’ Achievement of the High School Entrance Examination. Stud. Psychol. Behavior 2022, 20, 368–374. [Google Scholar]
  43. Shi, B.; Shen, J. The Relationship between family socioeconomic status, intelligence, Internal Motivation and Creativity. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2007, 23, 30–34. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ren, C. Measuring Techniques of SES of Students’ Families. J. Educ. 2010, 6, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fu, W.; Tang, W.; Zhang, L. Measuring left-behind children’s discrimination perception in China: The development of discrimination perceptions of left-behind children Scale. Med. Clin. Sci. 2022, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cui, L.X.; Zheng, R.C. A Cluster-Analysis of Problem Behavior of Middle School Students. Chin. Ment. Health J. 2005, 5, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wang, Q. Comparison of regression estimation standard error and determinability coefficient. Stat. Decis. 2006, 23, 141. [Google Scholar]
  48. Xiao, J.; Liu, X. How does family cultural capital influence the individuals’ development—Case study about left-behind children in China. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2022, 1, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shen, J.L.; Hu, X.Y.; Liu, X. Left-over Children’s Perceived Discrimination: Its Characteristics and Relationship with Personal Well Being. J. Henan Univ. 2009, 6, 116–121. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang, D.Q. Study on Intercommunication of Children Left in Rural Hometown. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2007, 12, 3714–3715+3728. [Google Scholar]
  51. Liu, X.; Zhao, J.X.; Shen, J.L. Emotional and behavioral adaptation of rural left-behind children. J. Chin. Soc. Educ. 2007, 6, 6–8+20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Zhao, L.L.; Wang, Y.Y. Analysis of Problems and Countermeasures of School Adaptation of Rural Left-behind Children. Contemp. Educ. Sci. 2018, 1, 81–84. [Google Scholar]
  53. Tan, S. A Review of Research on Left-behind Children in Rural China. Soc. Sci. China 2011, 1, 138–150. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ma, Y.Q.; Qiao, X.G.; Xing, S.P. Parental Warmth and Rejection in Relation to School-Aged Children’s Rule-Breaking Behaviors: The Moderating Effects of Callous-Unemotional Traits. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 2022, 30, 139–143+186. [Google Scholar]
  55. Shen, J.L. Development and Environmental Role of Migrant and Left-behind Children. Contemp. Youth Res. 2008, 10, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  56. Wang, D.Y. Primary School “left-behind children” Personality Characteristics and Education Countermeasures. China J. Health Psychol. 2002, 10, 354–355. [Google Scholar]
  57. Carlson, G.A.; Cantwell, D.P. Unmasking masked depression in children and adolescents. Am. J. Psychiatry 1980, 4, 445–449. [Google Scholar]
  58. Goldstein, S.; Naglieri, J.A. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  59. Romero, A.J.; Roberts, R.E. Perception of discrimination and ethnocultural variables in a diverse group of adolescents. J. Adolesc. 1998, 21, 641–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Huang, H.; Wang, X.Y. The Effect of Family Socioeconomic Status on Migrant Preschool Children’s Problem Behaviors: The Chain Mediating Role of Family Resilience and Child-Parent Relationship. J. Psychol. Sci. 2022, 2, 240–248. [Google Scholar]
  61. Liu, G.; Zhang, D.; Zhu, Z.; Li, J.; Chen, X. The Effect of Family Socioeconomic Status on Adolescents’ Problem Behaviors: The Chain Mediating Role of Parental Emotional Warmth and Belief in a Just World. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2020, 36, 240–248. [Google Scholar]
  62. Martin, M.J.; Conger, R.D.; Schofield, T.J.; Dogan, S.J.; Widaman, K.F.; Donnellan, M.B.; Neppl, T.K. Evaluation of the interactionist model of socioeconomic status and problem behavior: A developmental cascade across generations. Dev. Psychopathol. 2010, 22, 695–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ye, T.; Wu, H.T. Relationship between Low Family SES and Social Adaptation in Adolescence: Gratitude of Compensatory and Moderation Effects. Psychol. Explor. 2012, 1, 61–66. [Google Scholar]
  64. Su, Z.Q.; Zhang, D.J.; Shao, J.J. Relationship between SES and Social Adjustment of Left-over Children: With Perceived Discrimination as the Mediator. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 2015, 31, 212–219. [Google Scholar]
  65. Zhu, X.R.; Zhang, H. Influences of Family Socioeconomic Status on the Development of Children. J. Henan Univ. 2013, 6, 119–124. [Google Scholar]
  66. Yu, L.; Renzaho, A.; Shi, L.; Ling, L.; Chen, W. The Effects of Family Financial Stress and Primary Caregivers’ Levels of Acculturation on Children’s Emotional and Behavioral Problems among Humanitarian Refugees in Australia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Li, H.Y.; Shen, J.L.; Wang, X.L.; Zhang, L. Discriminatory Perception Is More Noteworthy than Poverty—Their Effect on Poor and Non-poor Children’s Behavior. Chin. J. Spec. Educ. 2011, 2, 83–89. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Demographic information of the participants. (N = 438).
Table 1. Demographic information of the participants. (N = 438).
Students’ InformationN100%
Gender
    Male21950.0
    Female21950.0
Grade
    Grade 5~610022.8
    Grade 711225.6
    Grade 812127.6
    Grade 912524.0
Left-behind or not
    Yes28464.8
    No15435.2
Situation of parents
    No one works outside14533.1
    Both work outside11526.3
    Father works outside16537.7
    Mother works outside133.0
Time of parents’ working outside
    No one works outside14533.1
    Less than 6 months7216.4
    6 months to 1 year11726.7
    1–2 years398.9
    2–4 years214.8
    More than 5 years4410.0
Table
Table 2. Comparison of Problem Behaviors between Left-Behind and Non-Left-Behind Children.
Table 2. Comparison of Problem Behaviors between Left-Behind and Non-Left-Behind Children.
Left-Behind (N = 284)Non-Left-Behind (N = 154)F
MSDMSD
Learning Maladaptation1.780.611.740.630.474
Aggressive Behavior1.330.431.310.440.363
Disciplinary Violation1.170.351.100.194.873 *
Withdrawals1.380.471.300.413.489
Neuroticism1.350.511.330.510.167
Exam Anxiety2.010.892.070.920.480
Problem behaviors1.430.381.390.341.348
Note: *: p < 0.05. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation.
Table
Table 3. Pearson correlation analysis of family SES, perceived discrimination, and problem behavior between left-behind children and non-left-behind children.
Table 3. Pearson correlation analysis of family SES, perceived discrimination, and problem behavior between left-behind children and non-left-behind children.
Family SESPerceived DiscriminationProblem Behavior
Family SES1
Perceived Discrimination−0.113 a (−0.095 b)1
Problem Behavior−0.124 a* (−0.078 b)0.333 a**(0.212 b**)1
Note: *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01; a: left-behind children, b: non-left-behind children.
Table
Table 4. Effects of family SES and perceived discrimination on problem behavior between left-behind and non-left-behind children.
Table 4. Effects of family SES and perceived discrimination on problem behavior between left-behind and non-left-behind children.
Predictor VariableProblem Behavior
StandardizeβΔR2
Family SES−0.111 a (−0.058 b)0.011 a (0.003 b)
Perceived Discrimination0.335 a*** (0.211 b**)0.107 a (0.043 b)
Note: **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001; a: left-behind children, b: non-left-behind children.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fu, W.; Xue, R.; Chai, H.; Sun, W.; Jiang, F. What Matters on Rural Left-Behind Children’s Problem Behavior: Family Socioeconomic Status or Perceived Discrimination. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021334

AMA Style

Fu W, Xue R, Chai H, Sun W, Jiang F. What Matters on Rural Left-Behind Children’s Problem Behavior: Family Socioeconomic Status or Perceived Discrimination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(2):1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021334

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fu, Wangqian, Rui Xue, Hongqin Chai, Wenxiang Sun, and Fangrui Jiang. 2023. "What Matters on Rural Left-Behind Children’s Problem Behavior: Family Socioeconomic Status or Perceived Discrimination" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 2: 1334. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021334

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop