Psychological Well-Being and Its Relations to School Trajectory and Family Educational Capital in High Intellectual Ability Adolescents

Abstract

The psychological well-being of adolescents depends on diverse contextual factors, in particular those relating to the educational and cultural capital of families. The study examined the relationships between psychological well-being of high-ability adolescents, family educational capital, and their school trajectory. The participants were 101 students from 1st year of a public high school in Morelos, Mexico, previously identify by their high intellectual ability. They completed an ad hoc form with information about cultural and academic aspects, and the Spanish version of the Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scale. Results shown that the School trajectory factor only had significant effects on Control environment and Purpose in life’s dimensions. Meanwhile the analysis of variances yielded that Cultural capital showed significant differences with the following well-being scales: General, Self-acceptance, Positive relations, and Purpose in life. Furthermore, the interaction between Sex and Cultural capital had only significant effects on Positive Relations and Environmental control favoring men over women, while the interaction of Cultural capital and School trajectory had significant effects only on Purpose in Life dimension. The results emphasize the need for studies that clarify the role of sociocultural context factors in understanding the comprehensive development of highly able adolescents and their psychological well-being.

1. Introduction

In Mexico, according to the National Institute of Statistics and Geography [1] the population of women and men ranging in ages 12 to 17 years is around 13.7 million, which represents the 34.5% of the total population in the country. In total, 26% live in rural zone while 34.5% live in urban or semi-urban zones. An increasing number of adolescents has been reported in recent years with disorders related to depression, substance addictions, and different problems linked to mental health [2] with an emphasis on a progressive decrease in their life satisfaction and confidence in their goals, projects and aspirations. These statistics points out the urgency of developing research that contributes to enhance adolescents’ psychological and personal well-being.

Among the essential processes that take place throughout adolescence along with the development of identity, is the shaping of life plans and purposes, the notion of one’s own existence and self-worth, the consolidation of social networks of positive links and relationships with the significant environment, and the reflection about one’s place in life and the vision of future [3]. From the academic perspective, the insertion of adolescents into upper middle education (pre university education or preparatory in Mexico) has an impact on their personal and social development. This stage of their lives will represent new challenges that lead to personal transitions towards intellectual, socioemotional, and behavioral maturation, all processes related with psychological well-being.

The humanist perspectives of Positive Psychology have provided holistic visions of psychological well-being within the framework of personality development and its socio-cultural processes of construction [4], conceiving it as the configuration of fundamental processes on which psychological development depends, as a key tool for shaping a healthy and creative life project and integrating oneself into society in a participative and creative manner. In this study, psychological well-being is assumed as an integration of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. The construct includes the individuals’ self- evaluation and positive appreciation of the different areas of their lives, a valuable perception of experiences and of the development of personal potentialities which goes beyond the absence of the negative states; it comprises attitudes and positions which reveal the emotional processes and perceptions of life as being more (or less) fulfilled and satisfactory [5,6], and would have an expression in adaptive (or maladaptive) behaviors, as well as in a wide spectrum of experiences.

Moral-García et al. [7] have indicated the increase in research concerning psychological well-being of children and adolescents in Latin America, although they point out that studies on the adult population are still predominating in this area. The most frequently studied topics are related to the study of well-being in educational, family and community contexts, the influence of psychological variables that function as protective (e.g., self-esteem, resilience, socioemotional skills) or risk factors (e.g., anxiety, depression, personality), the cultural and gender differences and psychosocial diversity [8]. Likewise, Casas and González-Carrasco [9] have noted the vulnerability of adolescents and youth revealed in data from the region, showing that personal well-being and satisfaction with one’s life progressively decrease with age. Recent research highlights the diversity of problems linked to the well-being of the younger population and the need of scientific knowledge to support intervention that contributes to the problems found [7,8,10,11,12,13].

1.1. High Ability Adolescents and Their Psychological Well-Being

Although children and adolescents with high intellectual capacities have become in Mexico the object of growing interest in both research and intervention, there are relatively few studies dedicated to explore whether they show levels of psychological well-being that constitute positive indicators of personal growth [14].

Definitions of high intellectual ability (or intellectual giftedness) are diverse and refers to very different perspectives. Particularly, high ability is seen in the present study as a potential in development, resulting from the progressive configuration of the individuals’ cognitive and psychological resources, as well as socio-cultural and contextual processes which lead to its further transformation into competences and talents in constant fulfillment [15]. Students with high intellectual ability might show a heterogeneous set of cognitive skills and processes [16] which determine a higher learning capacity compared to their same age peers, an outstanding cognitive potential manifested through the development of a singular profile of diverse intellectual aptitudes (linguistic, numerical, spatial, creative, logical), that makes their performance of cognitive tasks and activities highly flexible, creative and efficient in certain domains, and are stimulated in presence of opportunities and challenges. From this developmental-contextual perspective, the emergency of outstanding levels of proficiency and excellence depends on the interaction of endogenous and exogenous factors such as developmental, psychological, pedagogical, psychosocial, cultural [17,18].

There is a great amount of research focused on the development of the highly abled as a particular sensitive group, in contrast with the scarcity of studies on psychological well-being; socio-emotional and adaptive problems that might appear in adolescence have often been associated to their vulnerabilities analyzed and discussed by different studies. For instance, according to previous research [19,20], highly able adolescents may face difficulties in setting goals and plans related to the choices of their future work and profession, which have an impact on their lives in the contexts of middle education, higher education, or working life [21,22,23,24].

In addition, the psychological well-being of high intellectually able individuals has been a controversial topic in the specialized literature; sometimes it has been considered that they are more prone to psychological maladjustments, while other researchers present inconclusive evidences about this issue [25]. Nonetheless, the results of the diverse studies [26,27,28,29], have shown that there is not always a direct relationship between the construct intellectual ability and the levels of socioemotional adjustment and psychological well-being [30].

According to Ramiro [25], high ability adolescents might face difficulties in personal, school, and social adaptation, and consequently, confronting problems with social integration and with other facilitators of conviviality and social relations. Additionally, they could be less concerned about the material conditions of their existence, and being rather focused on setting goals, objectives, and challenging aspirations, which require efforts and implies achievements associated to self-realization with an impact on their satisfaction with life. Other authors have emphasized the multicity of personal and psychosocial and cultural factors that influences the experiences of well-being in gifted adolescents [31,32,33,34,35,36].

With regard to the relationship between psychological well-being and sex, although many authors have not found differences between men and females [25], others studies have shown evidence of its decrease in women, due to gender inequities and culture-related factors [8]. Additionally, the vulnerable situation of talented women would rather suggest the existence of important differences. For example, studies that analyze the barriers in the development of gifted women [37,38,39] have emphasized the lack of recognition of their abilities in the social world and in scenarios of competitiveness, for example, in scientific careers characterized by the omnipresence of men; authors have established the under-representation of the female population in the so-called STEM careers and professions due to gender stereotypes [40,41,42,43], even their relatively low participation in talent development programs compared to their male peers [44]. The invisibility of highly able and talented women throughout history represents a significant risk factor for the fulfillment of their potential and their well-being [45,46]. Similarly, these studies have noticed the problems of gifted young and adult women, who are in constant tension between their personal interests and needs, and their careers and professional lives [47]; in them, the realization of their professional projects and aspirations may be hindered by the responses of a sexist society that does not recognize the former if they do not form part of a socially and culturally established patterns [40,48]. In contrast, different studies [49], have also emphasize the better performance of women in evaluations of social-emotional intelligence and competences, which may be manifested in the development of empathy, the perception of security and confidence in their social relations, or the development of their resilience [50,51], that can introduce important differences with respect to their companions of the same sex.

In a study focused on the socio-affective characteristics of high ability adolescents [52], authors examined self-concept, emotional competence, social skills, self-perception of social acceptance in the school group, and emotional stability of the participants. The results highlighted the importance of feelings related to belonging to a group, the self-acceptance, and the extensive relationships established with friends and relatives, indicate that these variables determine to a high degree the emotional stability, the satisfaction, and the emotional well-being of the adolescents. The authors discussed the argument of Borges et al. [28] concerning two major positions about psychological well-being in high ability students: the one supporting the idea that gifted show better abilities and competencies to confront the stress, the anxiety generated by emotional and social conflicts, and the one, defending the fact that they would be vulnerable at experiencing alienation and stress that affects their stability and personal well-being.

Borges et al. [28] have sustained that high abilities and emotional well-being would be relatively independent, and that their relationships depends on the complex interactions of factors, among them, the social, cultural, and contextual ones [53].

1.2. Family Cultural Capital, School Trajectories, and Psychological Well-Being in High Ability Adolescents

At present, theoretical and empirical approaches from social, systemic perspectives to explain the high intellectual potential has been gaining in importance [54,55,56]. For instance, there has been an increase in studies that address the socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds of high abilities children and adolescents’ families come [52,57,58]. This kind of studies have firmly established the relationship between socioeconomic and cultural contexts, family support to school learning and parents’ educational strategies.

In general, in Latin America, studies which focused on variables such as family socioeconomic status, schools and family cultural capital [59,60,61,62] have emphasized that the unequal distribution of higher learning’s outcomes and excellence’s achievement are significantly associated with family inequalities in both cultural and economic capital. An essential variable of the family context is the educational level of the parents, which, in turn, is closely associated with variables of the socio-economic and environments, and with what is referred as family cultural capital [60,63]. This relationship depends significantly on factors such as the access to cultural activities and goods at home and the education of parents, parallel to their expectations, their beliefs about education and their involvement (affective and instrumental) in educational guidance to their children [64,65,66,67,68,69]. The studies by Hernández and Bazán [70] have shown the association among parents’ education levels, the type of support they give to their children’s education, and its effects on their children academic results or school trajectories.

In addition, other researchers [71] have discussed the complex and not always consistent links between parents’ socioeconomic status, cultural level, and occupation, respectively with the greater participation or involvement in their children’s academic learning and home-school relationships. They have found that a high academic level in parents would be associated with more effective participation in their children’s education, which in turn would impact on their results and their school career.

Ordaz and Acle [57], in a study carried out with high ability adolescents in Mexico City, identified common aspects in their families: parents had a higher level of education than the parents of the non-gifted population and they used to organize enrichment activities exposing their children to intellectual and sporting activities. However, Castellanos et al. [52], Soriano [72], and López-Aymes [58], among others, have reported a large variability in sociocultural characteristics of families with gifted children in Mexican context, specifically in the state of Morelos. Hence, there are complex emerging interactions between the influence of parents, their cultural capital, and the different family dynamics that can influence the achievements of students and their academic trajectories. In a study conducted by Ledesma [73], documenting an intervention program with parents of highly able students in a marginalized community of Cuernavaca, Morelos, most families reported a scarcity of economic and material resources, and low to medium educational level. However, parents implemented different strategies to support their children’s academic progress as well as the achievement of their goals and aspirations.

Likewise, previous studies [35,52,57,74,75] have shown that together with the diversity of actions that parents use to support school learning, the families have different visions than their children about these strategies’ effectiveness, its role in the educational processes, and its support to psychological independence and progress.

In any case, families that promote positive relationships, cohesion and closeness between their members and contribute to the needs of their children, also have a greater significant influence on their subjective perception of the well-being, as sustained by Gómez-Azcárate [76], Moral-García et al. [7], Creede et al. [77], among others. Family educational support is perceived by children and adolescents as a psychological mechanism of trust and security, which is directly related to higher self-concepts, less presence of depressive symptoms and substance abuse, in other words, to greater emotional well-being and satisfaction.

The relationship between parental support strategies, on one hand, and their socio-economic and cultural status is not direct and seems to be influenced by several factors. Actually, the educational family capital is one of them, and has shown to be a strong indicator of the involvement of parents in supporting their children’s academic achievement along their school trajectories.

Ambrose [78] has noted the need to understand how socio-economic and cultural inequities mask or constrain the development of children’s and adolescents’ aspirations, their abilities and potential, stressing its relationships with the well-being of gifted persons. The author emphasizes the impact of socioeconomic and cultural factors on the way in which adolescents and gifted undertake their life, and also on their levels of general and mental health, their feelings of self-worthiness, their positive relations with others, and their emotional experiences of freedom and self-determination. Likewise, he highlights the potential damages in personal aspirations and perceptions of life chances in highly stratified and unequal societies, noting the risk of subverting ambitions, hiding the talents, and a wide range of health and social problems, as the frustrations related to the impossibility of attempt immediate and long-term life goals [79].

Finally, the presence of socioeconomic and cultural inequities may undermine the education, the possibilities, and the abilities of parents to nurture and support the educational development of their children and their well-being. Thus, from various perspectives, the importance of the cultural capital of the family in the educational development and psychological well-being of children has been largely assumed [80].

As sustained by Creede et al. [77], there are strong theoretical bases and empirical evidences to support the links between academic achievement and the level of psychological well-being, mostly during adolescence, due to the importance that school performance and students trajectories have on future careers and lives; in addition, they have found that parental education functions as a moderator between school achievement, life satisfaction, and psychological well-being of their children, putting expectations and pressure to succeed at school, beyond their own education attainments.

In general, the studies that analyze the influence of the family in the development of high abilities and talents [15,57,62,81,82,83] emphasize the importance of stimulation and access to culture at home, and the existence of family supportive dynamics centered on the cultural enrichment of children and adolescents, in guiding decisions and addressing their scholastics needs [84]. However, studies carried out in the Mexico’s context also highlight the fact that students with high intellectual potential often come from families with medium and low socioeconomic and educational levels [57,58,65,73,82].

The present study aimed at exploring the relationship of general well-being of high intellectually able Mexican students in high school education and its different dimensions (self-acceptance, positive relationships with others, purpose in life, autonomy, environmental control and personal growth), with the composed variables (or factors) of family cultural capital and school trajectory.

2. Materials and Methods

The research was conducted as an exploratory, cross-sectional, quantitative study. The data were collected by means of a scale and an ad hoc form composed by multiple-choice questions.

2.1. Participants

The participants were 101 adolescents (39 females and 62 males), ranging in ages from 15 to 18 years (M = 15.52, SD = 0.65), attending the 1st grade of a public High School (Preparatory) in the city of Cuernavaca, capital of the state of Morelos, the largest number of inhabitants and economic activities are concentrated.

In Mexico, high middle education or upper secondary education, encompassed an academic period of 2 to 3 years (it can reach 4 years in technological certifications), between approximately 15 and 19 years old (although in the cases of technical schools it can reach 22 years old) and diverse modalities: general, bivalent/technical, and technical professional education of the upper middle level, dedicated to the training of professional technicians for industry and services. The institution is a General high school that prepares students with basic knowledge in various disciplines, arts, and techniques to pursue higher education and/or integrate productively into society.

The sample was intentionally chosen based on previously defined criteria. The participants were selected at the early stage (general screening) of a larger project whose purpose was to provide orientation and support in the construction of the life projects of intellectually gifted students. The inclusion criteria were: obtaining a score corresponding to the 90th percentile or higher on the Raven Progressive Matrices Test—General Scale (Raven, Court and Raven, 2008), as an indicator of high intellectual ability, and having the parents’ authorization as well as the students’ willingness to participate in the program. From the total of the first-year students of the school (N = 558), 467 adolescents completed the instruments (those whose parents and themselves acceded to participate in the project, and that attended classes the days of testing). Finally, 101 students (21.21%) met the inclusion criteria and conformed the sample for the present study.

2.2. Ethical Standards

The implementation of project was approved by the school which previously manifested the interest and intention of collaboration with the research team. Parents or legal guardians and students were asked to sign written informed consent or assent (for the adolescents) forms indicating their agreement to participate voluntarily in the research. The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Center of Transdisciplinary Research in Psychology, in the Autonomous University of the State of Morelos.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Psychological Well-Being

Psychological well-being was measured by means of the Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scale [85,86]. The Spanish version of the scale translated by Díaz et al. [87] was administered to the students. This instrument has been used in different studies conducted with Mexican adolescents and young adults [2,31,88,89,90,91]. The scale addresses psychological well-being as a multidimensional construct that comprises, in general, people’s perception and self-evaluation of their own life in terms of positive states or feelings regarding several aspects expressed in the subscales of the test.

The instrument consists of 39 items; the answers are placed on five values-Likert scale, with higher values indicating a greater degree of well-being and positive feelings regarding the own life. The six scales of the original theoretical model are: 1. Self-Acceptance (6 items): indicates the feelings of self-esteem and self-awareness (e.g., In general, I feel confident and positive about myself; when I review my life story I am happy with how things have turned out); 2. Positive Relations (6 items) describing the self- beliefs related to the existence of relationships of trust, empathy, and intimacy with others (e.g., I know I can trust my friends, and they know they can trust me); 3. Autonomy (8 items) related to the beliefs of being able to sustain individuality in different social contexts, grounding oneself in one’s convictions, self-determination and the ability to maintain one’s independence and personal authority. (e.g., I am not afraid to express my opinions, even when they are opposed to most people’s opinions); 4. Purpose in life (6 items) indicates the sense of direction in life, associated with the motivation to act following goals and developing plans (e.g., I enjoy making plans for the future and working to make them a reality); 5. Environmental control (6 items) is associated with a high internal locus of control and a strong sense of self-efficacy (e.g., In general, I feel that I am responsible for the situations I live in), and 6. Personal Growth (7 items) refers to the individual sense of personal development, as well as the presence of positive learning’s feelings (e.g., In general, over time I feel like I’m still learning more about myself).

The aforementioned studies carried out in Mexico reported adequate indexes of reliability and internal validity, although they have not always been able to reproduce the six-dimensional factor structure proposed in the original Ryff model [85,92]. The application of the scale for this study resulted in acceptable indicators.

The internal consistency analysis of the Well-Being Scale yielded the Cronbach’s Alpha values shown in

Table 1. Internal consistency of the Ryff’s Scale of Well-Being and its dimensions.

Scales	Alpha Values
General Scale	0.90
Self-Acceptation	0.81
Positive relations	0.68
Autonomy	0.42
Environmental control	0.57
Personal Growth	0.65
Purpose in life	0.80

Source: Authors.

; the consistency values range from 0.42 to 0.90. The coefficient’s values obtained for the General scale, Self-acceptance, and Purpose in life are high, while Positive relationships, Personal growth, Environment control, and Autonomy ranged from medium values to barely acceptable. It should be noted that the same tendency is shown in the reliability values obtained for the general scale and the different domain’s scales by other studies, where, in most dimensions, values above 0.65 were obtained, which are adequate for the size of the scale [87,89,90]. These results are also similar to those obtained in a Spanish version of 54 items whose coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.58 [93]; in the Portuguese version of 18 items, with coefficients between 0.593 and 0.702 [94]; and, finally, to a version of 18 items used in a study [95] with a Chinese population (0.60–0.75) [96].

2.3.2. Family Cultural Capital

The students completed a socio-demographic and cultural ad hoc form, which provided information corresponding to the family cultural capital, as well as to the student academic trajectory (mainly during the secondary school and their current high school year).

The form included multiple-choice questions related to the following variables: (1) Student marital status (single, married, concubinage), (2) Mother and father’s level of education; (3) Mother and father’s current occupation, (4) Mother and father’s current marital status; (5) Number of books at home; (6) Number of books read.

It should be noted that the cultural resources most related to educational performance are familiarity with written culture such as books in the home, reading practices, and family educational level among others [97]. Studies by Backhoff [60], Hernández [59], Hernández and Bazán [70], Hernández and González-Montesinos [98] Sancho- Álvarez et al. [99], Blanco [100], among others, have argued the importance of socioeconomic and cultural context’s effects, including indicators referred to the educational, professional, and occupational levels of parents. Thus, the indicators used in the present study, although not exhaustive, comprehend two essential components in this kind of studies: the education of parents and their occupation or type of work as predictors of the progress and educational achievements of their children.

The information on both parents’ education and family cultural background was reported by the adolescents.

2.3.3. Student School Trajectory

The ad hoc form requested information related to various indicators of the student school path or trajectory: grade point average (GPA) of high school; grade point average (GPA) of secondary school; number of repeated semesters; number of failed academic subjects; number of academic subjects registered for 2nd time (after previously failing an academic subject); average number of school absences during the last trimester; level of education out of the normative age; number of failed semesters, studies interrupted, changes of schools.

According to the INEE [96], providing quality in education, and ensuring it for the Mexican population of basic education age, requires that the latter succeed in enrolling or completing the different educational levels on time, i.e., at the normative ages. To achieve this, the school trajectory should be uninterrupted, so that in each school cycle a grade is completed and advanced. For example, starting preschool education and finish high school without a delay in that transit. The indicators used in the Mexican education system as evidences of school trajectory include aspects such as: severe gap (two or more school years with no grade advancement); regular progress; students with extra age (relation of the student’s age with the school grade they should be studying); approval, promotion, and exit rates, etc. Other important indicators have been the dropout rate (percentage of students enrolled in a grade who leave school during or at the end of the school year), the terminal efficiency rate (number of students who enroll at the normative age).

Therefore, this implies that any student who has shown any kind of gap or delay during his or her stay in the educational system, or who has failed a grade, subject, or obtained low grades is at risk of leaving the educational system, or an at-risk school career. Additionally, these data highlight the importance of academic achievement along the student’s school career. One could assume career events are associated with the psychological well-being of students, since it determines, especially in higher secondary education, the possibilities of achieving goals and aspirations for the future, as well as social recognition.

The indicators comprised in the ad hoc form represent then evidences on students’ school path, bring information about the presence or not, of “accidents”, problems, a non-linear or not optimal trajectory.

The two mayor factors, Family Cultural Capital (Cultural Capital) and Students’ school Trajectory (School trajectory), were formed by means of Rasch scaling of the factors with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1, using the software Winsteps^® [96]. The quintiles of both factors were then obtained in order to reduce the wide variability of the scores within them.

Table 2. Indicators and adjustment statistics for the factors Family Cultural Capital and Students’ School Trajectory.

First Level Factors	Indicators	Infit	Outfit
		Standard Deviations Expressed in Z Scores
Cultural Capital	Father educational level	−1.3	−1.3
	Mother educational level	0.2	0.2
	Father’s occupation	1.5	1.7
	Mother’s occupation	0.4	0.9
	Number of books at home	−0.2	0.2
	Number of book read	−0.2	−0.8
School trajectory	Grade point average (GPA) of previous trimesters (1st–2nd)	−1.1	−1.3
	Grade point average (GPA) of secondary school	−0.4	−0.4
	Failed academic subject matters in high school (Upper secondary educational)	0.2	−0.1
	Number of failed academic subject	0.2	−0.7
	Academic subjects registered for 2nd time	0.7	1.8
	Average of school absences during the last trimester	−0.2	−0.8
	Level of education out of normative age	0.4	0.5
	Studies interrupted	0.1	−0.3
	Changes of schools	1.0	1.9

Note: “To calculate Infit statistics, relatively more weight is given to the performances of those persons located closer to the item’s difficulty value”; “…The Outfit statistic is not weighted and therefore remains relatively more sensitive to the influence of outlying scores: the performances of persons distant from the item’s location” [101].

shows the adjustment values of each indicator to compose the full measure; the standardized versions of the adjustment statistics, expressed as the means squares values were transformed to produce a Z statistic with acceptable values between −2 and +2 [101].

The indicators that constitute the factors have been shown to have a significant association in other studies [59,60,70].

Each one of the factors appears then in a scale from 1 to 5 values, higher values indicating, respectively, better conditions in Family Cultural Capital, and a Student School Trajectory with more academic problems, deviations, and “accidents”, which means a more irregular trajectory.

2.4. Procedure

The participation of the school and students was optional, as a part of the project mentioned above. Two different schools were contacted and only one of them was willing to participate, so gave authorization and support to the different activities undertaken by the researchers. During a meeting with the families of the first grade students, the project was explained and parents filled-out a written informed consent where they agreed to be included as families. Later on, the students were also informed and signed the assent informed form, expressing their voluntary participation. The Raven Progressive Matrices Test, the sociodemographic and cultural form, and the Ryff’s Psychological Well-Being Scale were administered to the students in school’s locations during two separate regular school days.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were completed using SPSS Statistical Software Package, IBM (version 26). Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed. Regarding the analysis of the relationships between cultural capital, school trajectory, and psychological well-being (and, in addition the gender variable), the main effects of factors and variables were individually computed, using means’ comparison tests (t-test and analysis of variance); subsequently, a multivariate analysis was conducted to determine the different associations and interactions among the different variables and factors.

For the analysis of the relationships between cultural capital, school trajectory, and well-being (including in addition the gender variable), the averages obtained by the values of Sex on the general Well-Being scale and its dimensions were compared using the t-test for independent samples.

On the other hand, the assessment of the differences obtained between the values of Family Cultural Capital, and School Trajectory in the averages of the general Well-being scale and its dimensions was done using the One-Way ANOVA analysis. Finally, the effects of the interactions between the values of Sex, School Cultural Capital, and School Trajectory on the general value of Well-Being and the different dimensions were assessed, by means of Multivariate Statistical Analyses.

3. Results

This study examined the relationship of the psychological well-being of Mexican adolescents with high ability to their family cultural capital and school career or trajectory. To achieve this objective, the Ryff Psychological Well-being Scale (adapted to Spanish) and an ad hoc form to collect personal, family, and school data were used in order to create the factors of Family Cultural Capital and School Trajectory. Additionally, the relationships of these variables with the sex of the participants were examined.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the global scale of well-being and its dimensions by the five groups of Family Cultural Capital.

Quintiles Family Cultural Capital	N	General			Self-Acceptance			Positive Relationships			Autonomy
		Mean	SE	SD	Mean	SE	SD	Mean	SE	SD	Mean	SE	SD
1st	26	155.23	5.15	26.27	23.35	1.09	5.53	21.88	1.29	6.58	31.35	1.16	5.92
2nd	14	155.86	5.93	22.19	22.86	1.23	4.59	22.07	1.37	5.12	32.50	1.46	5.45
3rd	20	177.85	4.29	19.18	28.70	1.08	4.81	25.65	0.94	4.20	33.70	1.13	5.05
4th	17	171.94	5.91	24.36	24.94	1.75	7.22	25.53	1.22	5.04	34.47	1.00	4.12
5th	24	167.75	4.53	22.17	26.17	1.23	6.03	25.21	0.90	4.39	32.00	0.99	4.83
Total	101	165.58	2.42	24.36	25.28	0.60	5.99	24.06	0.54	5.39	32.65	0.52	5.18
Quintiles Family Cultural Capital	N	Environmental Control			Personal Growth			Purpose in Life
		Mean	SE	SD	Mean	SE	SD	Mean	SE	SD
1st	26	23.73	0.97	4.94	30.50	1.04	5.30	24.42	1.16	5.90
2nd	14	24.29	1.04	3.89	29.93	1.42	5.31	24.21	1.32	4.95
3rd	20	27.40	0.86	3.83	33.55	1.05	4.70	28.85	1.23	5.52
4th	17	26.65	1.23	5.07	32.71	1.49	6.14	27.65	1.21	4.99
5th	24	25.54	0.90	4.41	31.33	0.97	4.73	27.50	1.26	6.15
Total	101	25.46	0.46	4.63	31.59	0.52	5.27	26.54	0.58	5.81

Note: SE. Standard Error; SD. Standard Deviation. Source: Authors.

,

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the global scale of well-being and its dimensions by the five groups of School Trajectory. Note: SE. Standard Error; SD. Standard Deviation. Source: Authors.

Quintiles School Trajectory	N	General			Self-Acceptance			Positive Relationships			Autonomy
		Mean	SE	SD	Mean	SE	SD	Mean	SE	SD	Media	E.E.	D.E.
1st	27	171.41	3.92	20.36	26.04	1.05	5.47	24.30	0.94	4.89	33.96	0.95	4.92
2nd	17	173.18	5.30	21.86	26.35	1.65	6.79	24.82	1.14	4.71	33.35	1.31	5.40
3rd	21	161.29	5.69	26.10	23.81	1.01	4.62	23.14	1.50	6.87	32.29	1.20	5.51
4th	17	152.12	7.33	30.22	23.06	1.89	7.81	23.47	1.53	6.31	31.18	1.31	5.40
5th	19	167.32	4.61	20.11	26.84	1.15	5.03	24.58	0.95	4.15	31.89	1.10	4.79
Total	101	165.58	2.42	24.36	25.28	0.60	5.99	24.06	0.54	5.39	32.65	0.52	5.18
Quintiles	N	Environmental Control			Personal Growth			Purpose in Life
		Mean	SE	SD	Mean	SE	SD	Mean	SE	SD
1st	27	26.89	0.78	4.07	32.74	0.97	5.07	27.48	1.10	5.69
2nd	17	27.12	0.95	3.92	32.53	1.28	5.26	29.00	1.31	5.39
3rd	21	25.24	0.94	4.32	31.43	1.11	5.08	25.38	1.28	5.84
4th	17	22.00	1.29	5.30	29.24	1.44	5.93	23.18	1.24	5.13
5th	19	25.26	0.99	4.31	31.42	1.14	4.96	27.32	1.33	5.81
Total	101	25.46	0.46	4.63	31.59	0.52	5.27	26.54	0.58	5.81

Note: SE. Standard Error; SD. Standard Deviation. Source: Authors.

and

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the general scale of well-being and its dimensions by sex.

Sex	N	General			Sex	N	Environmental Control
		Mean	SE	SD			Mean	SE	SD
Women	39	161.74	3.89	24.32	Women	39	24.69	0.72	4.51
Men	62	168.00	3.08	24.28	Men	62	25.94	0.59	4.67
Total	101	164.87	3.49	24.30	Total	101	25.31	0.66	4.59
Sex	N	Self-Acceptance			Sex	N	Personal Growth
		Mean	SE	SD			Mean	SE	SD
Women	39	23.77	0.95	5.91	Women	39	31.72	0.77	4.83
Men	62	26.23	0.75	5.88	Men	62	31.52	0.71	5.57
Total	101	25.00	0.85	5.90	Total	101	31.62	0.74	5.20
Sex	N	Positive Relationships			Sex	N	Purpose in Life
		Mean	SE	SD			Mean	SE	SD
Women	39	22.26	0.90	5.62	Women	39	26.10	1.01	6.32
Men	62	25.19	0.63	4.96	Men	62	26.82	0.70	5.51
Total	101	23.72	0.76	5.29	Total	101	26.46	0.86	5.91
Sex	N	Autonomy
		Mean	SE	SD
Women	39	33.21	0.82	5.12
Men	62	32.31	0.66	5.23
Total	101	32.76	0.74	5.18

Source: Authors.

present respectively the general descriptive statistics for factors: Family Cultural Capital, Students’ School Trajectory and Sex. The two first present the differences by quintiles (in the case of School Trajectory the highest levels represent more irregular trajectories).

For the analysis of the mentioned relations, the means obtained for the values of Sex in the general scale of well-being and its dimensions were compared, using the t test for independent samples. On the other hand, the assessment of the differences obtained between the values of Family Cultural Capital, and School Trajectory in the averages of the general Well-Being scale and its dimensions was computed using a one-way ANOVA analysis. Finally, by means of a multivariate statistical analyses, permitted to assess the effects that the interactions between the values of Sex, School Cultural Capital and School Trajectory have on the general value of Well-Being and its different dimension.

The assessment of the differences in the general well-being scale and its different dimensions when associated to sex, only showed statistically significant results in the subscales of Self-acceptation (Levine’s F = 0.58, p > 0.05 and t = −2.04 (gl = 99) p < 0.05) and Positive relations (Levene’s F = 0.94, p > 0.05 and t = −2.75 (gl = 99) p < 0.01).

Figure 1 shows the differences between the means obtained by men and women in the dimensions already mentioned. In both subscales, men reported, on average, higher scores than women.

On the other hand, in the analysis of variance of Family Cultural Capital, statistically significant differences were obtained in the General Well-Being Scale (F = 3.70 (gl = 4, 96) p < 0.01) as shown in Figure 2.

The figure shows that the extreme groups (corresponding to quintiles) of Family Cultural Capital have better results than the intermediate groups.

Similarly, significant differences were obtained, in the dimensions of Self-acceptance (F = 3.31 (gl = 4, 96) p < 0.05), Positive relations (F = 2.74 (gl = 4, 96) p < 0.05), and Purpose in life (F = 2.70 (gl = 4, 96) p < 0.05); it should be noted that, in each of the comparisons mentioned above, the evidence of heteroscedasticity of the variances was statistically non-significant.

Figure 3 shows that students in the first two quintiles and in the last quintile; namely, students whose parents have a low level of education, and low-level work occupations, as well as those who come from households with high Family Cultural Capital, showed on average higher scores in the above-mentioned dimensions than their counterparts in the third and fourth quintiles.

Figure 4 presents the significant differences in the dimensions Control of the environment (F = 4.02 (gl = 4, 96) p < 0.01), and Purpose in life (F = 2.890 (gl = 4, 96) p < 0.05), associated with the factor School Trajectory. In the figure, it can be noted that groups that have had a regular school career, or trajectory, such as the first two quintiles, and/or one that had an irregular career (last quintile), obtained higher average scores than students from the third and fourth quintiles.

The effect of the interactions of the factors Cultural Capital, School Career and Sex could be evaluated by means of Univariate Multivariate Analysis. Among the different interactions analyzed, those between Sex and Family Cultural Capital were associated with significant differences only in the Positive Relationships dimension (F = 2.87 (gl = 4, 91) p < 0.05), and Control of the environment (F = 3.03 (gl = 4, 56) p < 0.05) (see Figure 5 and Figure 6)

Figure 5 and Figure 6 shows that, in most of the Family Cultural Capital groups, women means are below men in the Positive Relationships and Environmental Control dimensions.

Meanwhile the interaction of Family Cultural Capital and School Career has significant effects on the Purpose in Life dimension (F = 1.90 (gl = 16, 56) p < 0.05) (See Table 4).

Table 6. Means of the interaction values of Family Cultural Capital and School Career in the Purpose in Life dimension.

Family Cultural Capital (Quintiles)	School Trajectory (Quintiles)
	First	Second	Third	Fourth	Fifth
1st	24.90	31.50	25.50	28.17	31.80
2nd	31.67	29.00	30.00	32.67	24.20
3rd	17.67	21.67	29.67	25.25	28.13
4th	20.40	21.50	26.50	23.33	27.67
5th	27.20	24.00	30.50	32.00	24.00

Source: Authors.

present the means obtained from students in the interaction of Family Cultural Capital and School Trajectory. It can be noticed in the table that the students who showed irregular or interrupted school trajectories were those who came from homes with low School Cultural Capital, while those who obtained high values in the latter factor had regular school trajectories.

As can be seen from the information presented, the results obtained are complex, sometimes apparently contradictory, and therefore deserve special attention for their interpretation and discussion.

4. Discussion

The present study aimed at exploring the relationship of general well-being of high intellectually able Mexican students in high school education, and the different dimensions that configure it (self-acceptance, positive relationships with others, purpose in life, autonomy, control of the environment, and personal growth), with the composed variables (or factors) of family cultural capital and school trajectory. It should be noted that, due to the scarcity of previous research on this topic and with this population in the Mexican context, the study was exploratory. However, based on general evidences, it was considered relevant to clarify whether the psychological well-being of highly able adolescents in this school was associated with the presence of a higher cultural capital in the family, as well as with optimal characteristics of their academic trajectory. Likewise, it was pertinent to explore the influence of sex on the well-being of the participants and its relationship with the studied factors.

For this purpose, the Ryff’s Scale of Well-being (adapted to Spanish) was used, obtaining, in its General Scale a good internal consistency as well as in some of its dimensions, while in others the internal consistency values were rather lower, which was consistent with other studies [93,94,95].

The study sustains the importance of examining well-being in adolescence, as emphasized by authors like García et al. [10], Moral-García et al. [7], Casas et al. [9], Pérez-Fuentes et al. [12], as well as the diverse variables that could be determining it. These researchers have stressed the special vulnerability of adolescents’ well-being related to different factors, among them, the crucial role of parents and families’ contexts in shaping their perceptions, valuations, and feelings about their own lives. In line with what was emphasized by Ziegler et al. [84], positive gifted education needs studies centered in positive psychology perspectives, personal growth, life satisfaction, and well-being.

4.1. Family Cultural Capital and Well-Being

The results highlight, in particular, the importance that the Family Cultural Capital has in the psychological well-being of the students [7,12,13]. However, the results obtained in the General Scale of well-being show two different types of influences exerted by this factor: on the one hand, the influence which occurs at the low levels of education, parents’ occupation or employments and little access to culture at home (for example, presence of books and read books), as seen in quintiles 1 and 2; on the other hand, the influence that takes place when the cultural capital of families is high, as in quintile 5 (see Figure 2). The family cultural capital was also significant for the dimensions of Self-acceptance, Positive Relationships and Purpose in Life (Figure 3).

These findings could be examined based on authors such as Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi [4], Arriaga [5], Diener [6], or Ryff [85,86,92], who highlight from the positive psychology perspectives, how certain historical and personal conditions of biography stimulate the development of life projects that promote creativity and the overcoming of obstacles. Particularly, this could be the case for students with high ability, who seem to conceive themselves in pursuit of their purposes even when they do not have extensive resources at their disposal. Following Rinn et al. [30], persistence and goal-directed behavior could be a hallmark in their socioemotional development. As Castellanos et al. [15] point out, the (self) recognition of their high potential may been promoting a progressive and subjective reconfiguration of diverse psychological resources in the frame of contextual and socio-cultural processes.

In this way, students with high ability coming from families with low cultural capital could be developing their own resources of resilience [50] even when parental support is low or absent, for example; while students coming from families with high levels of cultural capital and which have the support of parents with a high educational level, better socioeconomic level and culture, do not need to develop them. These results could also be related with those of Creede et al. [77] who found that parents that had attained a lower educational level than their children have currently attained, to emotionally support their search for realization, and therefore influencing positively on their well-being.

On the other hand, and in the same direction, the differences between the two groups, can be attributed to parental involvement in students’ academic progress, and to the different effects that such involvement has on students’ educational performance [64,76,83,84]. As pointed out by some authors [12,72,73], families have very different conceptions about what really means the participation in their children’s education and the task of supporting their psychological independence and growth; the above-mentioned variables may influence the perception of well-being of family members [74]. Similarly, as Sánchez and Valdés [71] state, there is not always a clear association between the socio-economic and cultural level of the parents, their work occupation, and the participation they have in their children’s school activities [71,75].

Furthermore, as Ambrose [78] emphasizes, it is necessary to examine the restrictions to the potential and aspirations of adolescents, pointing out the urgency of raising awareness in society, schools and even families, about the effect of inequalities and environmental influences on the educational achievements of students with low cultural capital. In this work, in particular, the type of environment created by parents’ cultural capital do not appear in a linear relationship with the perceptions of Self-acceptance, Positive Relationships, and Purpose in life, suggesting that the reported well-being, and its links with the cultural capital factor should be re-conceptualized in the contexts established for each of them.

4.2. School Trajectory and Psychological Well-Being

In our results, the school trajectory by itself explains the well-being and satisfaction of adolescents in two of its dimensions, in which significant effects were obtained: Environmental control and Purpose in life. Students who appear in the first two quintiles (those with more regular trajectories) obtain better values in their perception of environmental control and over their own lives, as well as in their vision of future goals and achievements, contrary to their peers who are in the 4th and 5th quintiles in trajectory.

Additionally, from a descriptive point of view it could be observed in Table 5, in the measures of the Psychological Well-being by groups of school trajectory, that there is in general a tendency to negative associations, which allow to suppose that, in the different dimensions, as well as in the general scale, more irregular or uneven trajectories tend to be related to a less positive perception of well-being—including the acceptance of oneself, the experiences of environmental control and purpose in life, as well as in the other areas that define satisfaction and well-being [85].

Although these results are not statistically significant for the remaining dimensions of well-being, they are consistent with previous research [12,49,56] which pointed out that the meaning of a successful academic career may be related to the students’ confidence, the assurance that they can achieve their goals and aspirations in the short and long term, associated with their estimation of the control of their life, and their competencies to define it and work for their objectives, that is, the purpose in life dimension. Adolescents may perceive and regulate themselves according to the quality of their school progress, their results, and their academic career.

In this study, school trajectory refers to the lesser or greater presence of difficulties (failing school subjects, interruption of studies, point grades average in secondary school and high school, etc.), which should be associated with the perception of making adequate progress in school. In adolescence, school activity is quite important, as sustained by empirical studies [19,20,21], together with the fact that, during this period there is a growing development of vocational and professional interests, which should highlight the importance of academic achievements in the well-being of students [77].

The results of the extreme student group, in quintile 5, with a more irregular trajectory (as opposed to those in quintile 1, who have a more harmonious and linear trajectory throughout their study period), is undoubtedly interesting. This is shown in Figure 4. In general, it should be considered that actually the students’ academic averages, which are the most important indicator of their progress and results, are not low in the sample studied (mean = 8, SD = 1.04). Therefore, the perception of failure may not have an effect on the overall assessment of adolescents and their self-assessment of their school situation (self-acceptance or overall self-esteem). This would also imply the necessity of revising the indicators used to construct the School Trajectory factor, and critically analyzing whether they are the most appropriate for these purposes. On the other hand, it is possible that, rather than assessing a sense of well-being based on recognition of one’s specific worth as a student (academic self-concept) the well-being scale is assessing the student’s more general sense of acceptance and self-esteem.

Additionally, the self-identification of their high capacity in the adolescents may being diminishing an experience of failure configured on more particular aspects (with more punctual indicators) or diminishing the recognition of the academic difficulties encountered on the irregular trajectory. This should be further investigated in future research. How irregular the academic trajectory really is, how far from the student’s own expectations according to his or her standards, those are questions for which the answers could help to understand the absence of effects of the School Trajectory on all dimensions of the well-being perception in the participants.

Finally, it is necessary to investigate in greater detail the psychological significance of the results of the group in quintile 5, in which, in addition to the aspects already raised, students could also have developed particular resources and coping strategies in the face of a potential failure, capitalizing other resources, such as the elaboration of more mediated, long-term projects that give them a vision of the future which compensating their academic results.

In this case, an important issue would be confirmed: that of how, regardless of external conditions [11], internal factors can become protectors, facilitators of resilience in adolescents with high abilities. One of the more important of these protectors’ factors would be the self-awareness of their giftedness and the capacity of deciding, in spite of everything, their life. This would also be consistent with positions that affirm the existence of social-emotional resources in children and adolescents with high ability [23,30,33,34,35,39,53] that help them to face stress, difficulties, and a variety of conflicts (including high expectations of others) that affect their well-being and emotional stability.

4.3. Sex Factor and Psychological Well-Being

In this study, the factor sex of participants, resulted associated with well-being, only in relation to Self-acceptance and Positive relationships. In both cases, as shown in Figure 1, men have significantly higher scores than women, in line with Bergold et al. [14]. This result contrasts with that proposed by Ramiro [25], in studies carried out with adults, who found no significant differences by sex, although it is easy to understand that especially in these two areas (two very sensitive aspects of emotional satisfaction), the results of the adolescent population can vary significantly from adults.

Particularly, authors such as Valadez [23] and Reis [41,42] have remarked on the strong influences of gender stereotypes on women adolescent’s perception of self-acceptance and worth, and on the evaluation of their relationships of trust and empathy with their peers and other persons. The experience of being different [83] may be much more intense in women adolescents (than in men), due to the weight of prejudices and the invisibility of their talents [33,34,35,36,42,43,46]. Our results are also in line with the evidence provided by Bergold et al. [14], who found a lower life satisfaction in women adolescents although this effect appeared in both gifted and non-gifted students.

Likewise, these results are also in line with Castellanos and Hernández [52] and with other studies [37,38,40] that suggest the possibility of a diminished self-perception in women, as well as the feeling of not fitting into the peer groups because of their differences, which would affect both the dimension of self-acceptance and that of positive relations with others.

Women adolescents may live social situation in which they are undervalued [41,42,47] and relatively isolated from her partners. The presence of less positive perceptions when comparing men and women in self-acceptance and positive relationships is pointing precisely to very vulnerable points in which women’s feelings of handicap are rooted in their social context. What is significant here is that it is precisely in these two dimensions that differences in well-being are expressed.

4.4. Family Cultural Capital and School Trajectory

One of the most complex interactions to be analyzed in this study is that of Family cultural capital with School Trajectory, due to the very few patterns that could be identified at first sight. However, as can be noted in Purpose in Life dimension (Table 6), it is evident that students with low and high values in Family cultural capital and with a regular School trajectory are those who have the highest scores in the aforementioned dimension; an increase in the values of School trajectory—more uneven and interrupted trajectories—is accompanied of more homogenous values of cultural capital. In this way, the finding is, again, that the perception of students regarding their school success or failure does not seem to influence the perception of the purposes they have already established or are on the way to achieving. Moreover, the differences of socioeconomic-cultural levels on well-being only have an influence when schooling paths are regular.

These results suggest two different perspectives. In the first case, the existence of groups with diverse socio-cultural capital, and regular or semi-regular school trajectories, shows the need to take care of highly able students that show less well-being perceptions and negative sense of purpose in life. It is in this sense that Ambrose [79] establishes that social and cultural inequities may be restricting and limiting the development of talents, and therefore, the psychological well-being of adolescents with high capacity.

On the other hand, it should be analyzed how the students with irregular and uneven school trajectories manage to avoid feelings and experiences related to school failure that could affect their sense of projecting their lives and of meeting their goals in the future. This may be related to the development of resources of resilience in some of the students, of coping strategies, or (what would be more worrying) a distortion of their realities and their needs. In any case, it must be deepened.

In conclusion, there are many suggestive results not explained in this framework that requires further research and continuity of this line of study.

Some limitations of the study restrict the understanding and scope of its results. On the one hand, not being able to have adolescents of average and low intellectual abilities as participants in the study, which does not allow a comparison in this sense, and to reach conclusions that give light on the development of talented adolescents.

Moreover, future research should include, not only some indicators as measures of the cultural capital of the family, but a more comprehensive group of them, in addition to examine their relationships with measures of the family economic capital and environment. Similarly, a limitation of the study was the absence of participants from more diverse socio-economic and cultural contexts; it would be desirable to include not only public schools in urban contexts, but also rural schools and private schools.

Finally, the relevance of this type of study is largely mediated by methodological aspects (such as the problems of consistency of the well-being scale using the data from this research). The search for reliable and valid instruments for the study of particular populations is also part of cultural sensitivity, which is necessary in the emerging paradigms of giftedness [18,56,78,79].

In general, beyond the differences in sex, school trajectory, or cultural capital of the families, the results of the study allow to emphasize the relevance of analyzing variables such as self-acceptance, positive relationships, autonomy (which does not appear as a significant dimension in this study), and especially, two dimensions that seem to make the difference in relation to the psychological well-being of the adolescents participating in this study: control of the environment, and purpose in life, which may be essential characteristics of adolescents with high intellectual potential.