Knowledge From the Afrikan World, For the World

PMC Articles

Peer-Peer Cultural Value Mismatch in the Dormitory During the Transition to College: Antecedents and Correlates

PMCID: PMC10392955

PMID: 37529117

Abstract

This research focuses on peer-peer cultural value mismatch – perceived mismatch between collectivistic ideologies and practices of one student and individualistic ideologies and practices of another – among students living in the dormitories during the transition to college. Two survey studies examined the antecedents and correlates of two types of mismatch: (1) reciprocation mismatch: giving or offering a material or service to one’s roommate but not receiving anything in return; and (2) not thinking of the other: feeling as though roommates are not considerate of one’s feelings or schedule. Study 1: A sample of 110 students in their first year of college showed that being a first-generation college student increased the likelihood of experiencing reciprocation mismatch. Both forms of mismatch predicted experiences of psychological distress, reports of academic problems, and lower grades. Study 2: A sample of 152 (76 dormitory roommate pairs) first-year college students revealed that social-class differences in parental education between dormitory roommates predicted students’ experiences with reciprocation mismatch. Students of lower parental education than their roommate reported significantly more mismatch. More mismatch experience was in turn linked to significantly higher levels of academic problems during the transition to college. Implications for research, residential life, and intervention are discussed.

Full Text

I volunteer to do things for you because I understand we all need that helping hand…but then when I don’t get it back its just like…we had math and we’re both taking [it]…she had one resource that I needed and she heard me…struggling for it and she didn’t do anything about it… (Latinx first-generation college student; Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015)
The quote above represents the qualitative, lived experience, of a first-generation college student – one whose parents had no more than a high-school education. This student supported her roommate, but felt as though she did not receive support back in return. This experience of reciprocation mismatch is part of a broader phenomenon known as peer-peer cultural value mismatch – perceived mismatch between collectivistic ideologies and practices of one student and individualistic ideologies and practices of another. Collectivistic ideologies prioritize group goals and community cohesion; individualistic ideologies prioritize one’s personal needs and goals (Greenfield, 2009). Mismatch between collectivistic and individualistic peer behavior can be a source of stress for first-generation college students during the transition to college (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015).
Decades of research have demonstrated the powerful impact, both positive and negative, that peers may have on students’ development (Dennis et al., 2005; Juang et al., 2016). This impact begins in adolescence, once youth begin to spend more time with their peers; it continues as they move on to college (Lightfoot et al., 2018), at which point a significant percentage of students live in campus dormitories and have roommates (American College Health Association, 2019). At the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where the present research was conducted, almost all students live in the dormitories in their first year of college. Thus, in investigating peer relationships, empirical work among roommates living in dormitories is absolutely necessary.
Roommate relationships may be particularly important during the transition to college. For the very first time, many students move away from their family home and live with someone that is a nonfamily member. Nearly 50 % of first-year college students in the U.S. report “frequent” or “occasional” conflicts with roommates (Liu et al., 2008). Conflicts with roommates may be particularly impactful because they live in close proximity to one another, and are somewhat permanent peers, at least for a quarter/semester or an academic year. Indeed, roommate conflict negatively impacts students’ health and academic adjustment (e.g., stress, academic grades; Erb et al., 2014). However, only one study has described intergroup conflicts or situations that might occur in the dormitory (Jaggers & Iversen, 2012; i.e., racial stereotypes and interracial tension). Nonetheless, even this study did not deal with the issue of differing cultural values, the subject of our research. Though there is some work documenting that ethnic similarity (Bresnahan et al., 2009) and similar communication styles (Martin & Anderson, 1995) promote positive interpersonal outcomes among roommates, we have found no work on the role of social class and cultural value differences between roommates. Our research is a first attempt to fill these gaps by investigating peer-peer cultural value mismatch and the role of social class differences among roommates in experiencing this kind of mismatch.
The concept of peer-peer cultural value mismatch (previously termed, peer-peer value conflicts) in a post-secondary education setting, was first introduced via a qualitative study with Latinx first-generation college students (71 % female; parental education range: no formal education – graduated from high school) who were in their first year of study at UCLA, the site of the present two studies (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). Students took part in a group interview that ranged from 3 to 7 students. In the group interview, 57 % of these Latinx first-generation college students reported having experienced a peer-peer cultural value mismatch situation in which their behavior was collectivistic, but their peer’s behavior was individualistic; almost always these experiences were with a roommate.
The experiences were of two different types: (1) Reciprocation mismatch: they gave or offered a material or a service to their roommate but did not receive anything in return; or (2) Not thinking of the other: students’ roommates were not considerate of their feelings or schedule (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). There were indications that Latinx first-generation college students felt these situations played a negative role in their college adjustment, particularly in regard to stress and negative emotions (components of mental health), as well as in the ability to control their attention (an aspect of mental health and academics). Though students denied that such situations impacted their grades, this response may have been due to the fact that they felt “family” had a stronger impact on them (Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015). In other words, students felt that cultural mismatch between family and academics had a stronger impact on their grades than did cultural mismatch situations with peers. Nonetheless, poor peer relations can undermine students’ academic adjustment (Erb et al., 2014).
Nearly one-third of first-time freshmen across the nation are first-generation college students (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). In some studies, they are defined as students whose parents had no postsecondary education (e.g., Toutkoushian et al., 2019); in other studies, they are defined as students whose parents have not attained a four-year degree (e.g., Stephens et al., 2012a). However they are defined, they are more likely to drop out of college or take longer than their continuing-generation college peers (students whose parents had contrasting levels of postsecondary education) to earn their degrees (U.S. Department of Education, 2018; DeAngelo et al., 2011). These educational disparities have led researchers to investigate contributing factors. Peer relations have emerged as an important factor, especially for first-generation students. Poor peer relations contribute to negative adjustment outcomes for all college students (Gan et al., 2019; Juang et al., 2016; Maunder, 2018; Sadoughi & Hesampour, 2016). However, the contribution is greater for first-generation college students (Dennis et al., 2005; Jenkins et al., 2013; Posselt & Lipson, 2016), including those residing at college (Sriram et al., 2020).
This impact may stem from the fact that first-generation college students represent a minority group within university settings. For this reason, their collectivistic, cultural practices, such as those involving the importance of community (Stephens et al., 2012a), are not always aligned with or reciprocated by their majority peers (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). Therefore, first-generation college students are at the forefront of our investigation because this is the population at highest risk of experiencing cultural value mismatch.
Two seminal theories guided the current research. The first, Theory of Social Change, Culture, and Human Development, describes the antecedents of cultural mismatch at a broad scale (Greenfield, 2009). The second, Cultural Mismatch Theory, is a focused theory that describes the antecedents and consequences of a general notion of cultural mismatch in a university setting, with first-generation college status being central in the experience of cultural mismatch (Stephens et al., 2012a; 2012b).
This theory conceptualizes cultural values as an adaptation to particular sociodemographic ecologies; it posits that movement from one ecology to another can result in a sense of cultural value mismatch or conflict (Greenfield, 2009). According to the theory, collectivistic values are adapted to ecologies in which formal education is limited and material resources are low – an ecology experienced by the parents of first-generation college students. In contrast, individualistic values are adapted to ecologies in which opportunity for formal education is great and material resources are more abundant – the ecology experienced by the parents of continuing generation college students, and the college environment itself. This theory predicts that, when individuals transition from an ecology characterized by collectivistic values to one that is more individualistic, cultural value mismatch can occur. Thus, central to the current research, this theory predicts that students with parents who have low levels of education will experience cultural value mismatch during their transition to post-secondary education. Empirical support for this theory has been gathered from research on Latinx youth from economically challenged homes at various stages in educational development (elementary: Trumbull et al., 2001; Greenfield & Quiroz, 2013; high school: C. Suárez-Orozco & M. Suárez-Orozco, 1995; four-year universities: Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015).
This theory provides a detailed account of cultural mismatch within four-year university settings (Stephens et al., 2012a). According to Cultural Mismatch Theory, four-year universities normalize independent or individualistic values. That is, priority is given to personal needs and goals. These values align with those of continuing-generation college students, but mismatch with the interdependent or collectivistic values that first-generation college students are socialized with at home. These students prioritize group goals and community cohesion. This situation results in cultural mismatch with the university culture for first-generation college students, but not for continuing-generation college students. This general sense of mismatch has been rigorously examined at research-centered institutions (private and public); it has been documented to cause a disruption in both health and academic performance during the first-year of college (Stephens et al., 2012a; Stephens et al., 2012b).
The health effect manifests in an increase in the stress hormone, cortisol, and negative emotions when a student is exposed to experimentally induced cultural mismatch. For first-generation college students, priming individualistic values produced a significantly larger stress response than priming collectivistic values (Stephens et al., 2012b). However, for continuing-generation college students, there was no significant difference in stress in the different value conditions. A similar pattern unfolded for academic-related tasks: poorer performance on such tasks for first-generation college students primed with individualistic values compared with collectivistic primes; no performance differences with different value primes for continuing generation students (Stephens et al., 2012a). Thus, this theory has led to empirical support for the existence of cultural value mismatch in a university setting and has shown its explanatory power. Central to the current research, it implies that first-generation college status is an antecedent to experiencing cultural value mismatch and that mismatch has negative consequences for health and academic adjustment during the transition to college.
Based on these theoretical perspectives, we expected that the cultural orientation of first-generation college students (or students with lower levels of parental education) living in a dormitory would be more collectivistic, whereas the cultural orientation of continuing-generation roommates (or roommates with higher levels of parental education) would be more individualistic. The situation of social class mismatch among roommates thus sets the stage for peer-peer cultural value mismatch – the experience of mismatch between the more collectivistic ideologies and practices of one student and the more individualistic ideologies and practices of another (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015).
The current research advances prior theoretical frameworks by examining the antecedents and correlates of an understudied form of mismatch – peer-peer cultural value mismatch. In this research, we focus on the experience of peer-peer cultural value mismatch from the perspective of a student with a more collectivistic orientation living with a roommate who is more individualistic, as prior theory and research with students at four-year universities have indicated that cultural mismatch has greater consequences for first-generation than for continuing-generation college students (Stephens et al., 2012a; Stephens et al., 2012b; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2021). In two quantitative studies we examined antecedents and correlates of peer-peer cultural value mismatch in multiethnic samples.
The contribution of this research is to enhance understanding of cultural mismatch within a key social context for entering college students, the university dormitory. Extant research has largely focused on a general sense of cultural mismatch between students’ collectivistic values and the individualistic values of the university institution (Stephens et al., 2012a; Stephens et al., 2012b; Phillips et al., 2020). With the exception of our qualitative study (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015), the social context of peer-peer cultural value mismatch among dormitory roommates has not been explored. Our two quantitative studies begin to fill this gap.
The original study documented peer-peer cultural value mismatch in a sample of Latinx first-generation college students (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). Latinx students are considered a disadvantaged minority group, as are Black students (Townsend et al., 2019). Thus, because we had a diverse sample, we incorporated disadvantaged minority background as a variable within our analysis of antecedents. Including this variable within our analyses is important as empirical research suggests that disadvantaged minority students (e.g., Latinx, Black) hold strong collectivistic values (e.g., Brannon et al., 2015; Fuligni & Pedersen, 2002; Greenfield et al., 2003); and engagement in collectivistic practices, such as forming communities, is important in fostering positive college experiences in this demographic (Boettcher et al., 2019). Thus, we needed to ensure that our findings regarding the role of parent education in this particular type of mismatch hold above and beyond one particular minority group.
Based on the work of Stephens and colleagues (2012a; 2012b), we hypothesized that first-generation college students would experience peer-peer cultural value mismatch more than their continuing-generation peers and that this relation would hold even after controlling for minority background. Such results would enable us to generalize the experience of peer-peer cultural value mismatch to first-generation college students from all ethnic backgrounds. We expected these relations to hold across two kinds of peer-peer cultural mismatch, one focused on reciprocation mismatch with one’s roommate, and the other focused on experiences with a roommate who does not think of the other person. Thus, a secondary goal of this hypothesis was to examine whether both types of mismatch reliably differentiate the experience of first-generation from that of continuing-generation students.
Our hypothesis concerning the associated correlates that unfold with the experience of peer-peer cultural value mismatch are based on the general, theoretical notion that cultural mismatch negatively impacts health (Stephens et al., 2012b) and academic adjustment (Stephens et al., 2012a) during the transition to college. In addition, the specific, interconnected paths involving health and academic performance are based on the findings from our qualitative study of peer-peer cultural value mismatch among Latinx students as well as other literature.
In Burgos-Cienfuegos et al. (2015), Latinx first-generation college students reported that cultural value mismatch with their dormitory roommates made them feel distressed. This finding led to the first hypothesized link in our model of correlates: peer-peer cultural value mismatch will predict psychological distress (Figure 1). Moreover, correlational and experimental studies suggest that individuals who experience psychological distress are also prone to experiencing problems with regulating their attention (Liston et al., 2008; Mathews & MacLeod, 1985; Meyers et al., 2014; Yiend, 2010) and engagement in learning activities (Ramirez & Beilock, 2011; Rozek et al., 2019). These findings led to the second link in our correlates model: psychological distress, will, in turn, relate to higher levels of attention and learning problems, which we term, academic problems. Indeed, issues with regulating one’s attention furnished one topic of conversation among participants who experienced these peer-peer mismatch situations in the small groups studied by Burgos-Cienfuegos and colleagues (2015). A logical correlate of academic problems is lower grade point averages (GPAs). Our model therefore predicted a significant link from academic problems to GPA. Lastly, because we expected psychological distress and academic problems to serve as the main mechanisms that relate peer-peer cultural value mismatch to GPA, we did not expect a direct link in the model from mismatch to GPA. Instead, we predicted that peer-peer cultural value mismatch would have a significant indirect effect on GPA through the paths of the intervening variables (Figure 1). We expected these relations to hold in two separate models, one for reciprocation mismatch and one for not thinking of the other.
Thirty percent of the students in our sample were first-generation college students, meaning that neither parent held any experience with postsecondary education (please see further details in our measures section). Our sample was ethnically diverse (Asian = 35; Latinx = 30; White or European American = 32; Black or African American = 4; Multiracial or Other Ethnicities = 9). These percentages roughly corresponded to the distribution of ethnicities at UCLA (UCLA Undergraduate Admissions, 2018–2019).
Following Townsend et al. (2019), we distinguished between ethnic groups who are academically disadvantaged and those who are not. We labeled all students who identified themselves as Latinx, Black or African American or with one of these ethnic backgrounds and another background as 1 (disadvantaged minority). Students who identified with another ethnic background were labeled as 0 (e.g., White or European American, Asian); they were considered academically advantaged. This categorization aligns with definitions used by Townsend et al. (2019). It is important to note that by academically disadvantaged we are referring to the historical marginalization or minoritization of these ethnic groups in education and society (Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2023).
Students who were considered first-generation college students came from households where their parents had no form of postsecondary education (coded as 1). Students who reported that their parents had at least some postsecondary education or higher were labeled as continuing generation college students (coded as 0). This cut-point has been frequently used in the field (Demetriou et al., 2017; Saenz et al., 2007; Toutkoushian et al., 2019) and had particular ecological relevance to our population. Specifically, among the Latinx first generation college students at UCLA that took part in our prior qualitative study on peer-peer cultural value mismatch, the highest level of parental education was high school; thus, no parent had any form of postsecondary education.
A 10-item measure assessing mismatch between the collectivistic ideologies and practices of dormitory residents and the individualistic ideologies and practices of their roommates was created using phenomena identified by Burgos-Cienfuegos et al. (2015). The measure assessed the frequency of two different types of peer-peer mismatch. The first type, reciprocation mismatch, included five-items; sample items included: “When going somewhere (e.g., store, coffee shop), I ask my roommate if he or she wants or needs anything but he or she never does the same for me,” and “I have shown support to my roommate when needed but he or she has not reciprocated support when I need it.”
The second type, not thinking of the other, included 5-items; sample items included: “I often find myself cleaning common areas (e.g., restroom, trash) that my roommate and I both use because he or she never helps clean,” and “My roommate makes a lot of noise (e.g., watches television, talks on the phone) when I am trying to study.” All items were prefaced with the following statement: “Since you started rooming with X, please state how often you have experienced the following with him or her…”. Responses ranged from 1 (Never) to 4 (Frequently). The Cronbach alphas were .89 and .78, respectively, indicating acceptable internal consistency among the items (Newton & Rudestam, 1999).
A principal components analysis with promax rotation and Kaiser normalization was conducted with the items of the peer-peer cultural value mismatch measure. The analysis resulted in a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient of .818 (well above the recommended .50) and a Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity of χ2(45) = 556.07, p < .001, suggesting significant sampling adequacy. As shown in Table 1, the analysis yielded two factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and item loadings of .40 or higher. As expected, the ten items of the peer-peer cultural value mismatch measure loaded onto the two hypothesized typologies: (a) Factor 1 represents items related to reciprocation mismatch and (b) Factor 2 represents items related to not thinking of the other. The two-factor solution explained 63.38 % of the variance.
A seven-item measure captured students’ feelings of distressed mood since they started UCLA. Students were asked to rate the extent (1 = Not at all to 5 = Extremely) to which they felt “on edge,” “nervous,” “uneasy,” “unable to concentrate,” “sad,” “hopeless,” and “discouraged.” This measure, previously utilized with a diverse sample (Huynh & Fuligni, 2010), is an adapted version of Lorr and McNair’s (1971) Profile of Mood States and yielded an excellent alpha of .91. The only change from the original measure was to direct participants’ attention to their time at UCLA by prefacing the instrument with “Since you started at UCLA.”
A 6-item measure of academic problems was utilized. Students were asked to rate (1 = Never to 5 = Always) how many times they experienced certain situations since they started at UCLA. These situations included attention (three-items; e.g., “had a difficult time focusing on studying”) and learning problems (three-items; e.g., “did not turn in homework that was due”; adapted from Telzer & Fuligni, 2009). The Cronbach’s alpha was .84, indicating good internal consistency.
Correlates of peer-peer value mismatch were assessed via path analysis, a structural equation modeling technique, using Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation in EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 2006) for Windows. A separate model for the interrelations with other variables of each type of peer-peer mismatch – reciprocation mismatch and not thinking of the other – was planned (Hypothesis 2). Separate models were appropriate to the number of observed variables (p = 4) and sample size (N = 110). A saturated model with p variables has p(p + 1)/2 free parameters to be estimated (Bentler, 2006). In the current study, there were p = 4 observed variables in this model, resulting in 10 parameters to be estimated. Bentler and Chou (1987) suggested a sample size of 5–10 participants for every free parameter, and this rule of thumb is consistent with our current sample size of 110.
The hypothesized models (Figure 1) were based on theoretical considerations and previous literature; separate models were tested for each of the peer-peer cultural value mismatch factors that emerged from our data. Model fit was evaluated using chi-square (x2), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The model is a “good” fit if the x2 is not significant or near non-significance, the CFI is greater than or equal to .95, and RMSEA is less than or equal to .05 (Byrne, 2006). The model is of “moderate” fit when at least two of these are met (Byrne, 2006; Vasquez-Salgado & Chavira, 2014).
Once appropriate fit was established, direct and indirect effects were examined (Bentler, 2006). A direct effect is when one variable predicts another, and an indirect effect is when one variable predicts another variable through one or more intervening variables (Kline, 2011). In order to confirm whether an indirect effect was the main source of influence, a direct path (within the model) between those variables must not be statistically significant. If the direct path is significant, this implies that the indirect effect only explained part of the relation between one variable and another (Kline, 2011; Kohen et al., 2008). Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all variables of interest are presented in Table 2.
This section will focus on the correlates of peer-peer cultural value mismatch. We hypothesized that peer-peer cultural value mismatch would predict psychological distress (Figure 1). In turn, we expected that psychological distress would relate to more academic problems, and that such problems would predict lower grade point average (GPA). In addition, we did not expect a significant direct link from peer-peer cultural value mismatch to GPA (Figure 1). Instead, we expected a that peer-peer cultural value mismatch would have a significant indirect effect on GPA through the paths of the intervening variables. Below, we discuss this hypothesis with two forms of mismatch.
This model examined relationships of reciprocation mismatch during the first year of college with psychological distress, academic problems, and GPA. As predicted, the path model (Figure 2) fit the data well, χ2(2, N = 110) = 1.88, p = .391, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00. More mismatch around reciprocation predicted higher levels of psychological distress. In turn, higher levels of psychological distress predicted greater academic problems. Finally, greater academic problems related to lower college GPA during the first year.
This model examined relationships of not thinking of the other during the first year of college with psychological distress, academic problems, and GPA. Like reciprocation mismatch, the path model (Figure 3) fit the data well, χ2(2, N = 110) = 1.36, p = .505, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00. As expected, more mismatch involving not thinking of the other predicted higher levels of psychological distress. In turn, higher levels of psychological distress predicted greater academic problems. Finally, greater academic problems related to lower college GPA during the first year.
The antecedents of reciprocation mismatch – giving or offering a material or a service to one’s roommate but not receiving anything in return, one type of peer-peer cultural value mismatch, was in line with expectations and prior research (Greenfield, 2009; Stephens et al., 2012a). We found that first-generation college students, regardless of disadvantaged minority background, more often experienced this form of peer-peer cultural value mismatch than continuing-generation students. This finding is in line with Cultural Mismatch Theory (Stephens et al., 2012a), which posits that first-generation college students are more likely than continuing generation students to experience a general sense of mismatch with the university culture. These findings are also aligned with the Theory of Social Change, Culture, and Human Development (Greenfield, 2009) which posits that social class, rather than ethnicity, is a main contributor to cultural values, and therefore to the experience of cultural value mismatch; in this case, being a first-generation college student was the main social-class contributor.
Contrary to our hypothesis, not thinking of the other – the student’s roommate was not considerate of their feelings or schedule – did not relate to either first-generation or disadvantaged minority status. This finding suggests that feeling as though your roommate is not being considerate can be due to several factors outside of cultural value mismatch and may be a situation that is more normative in roommate relations. Indeed, a review of research on roommate relationships in the dormitory noted that dormitory roommates have frequent “negotiation of responsibilities and compromises about the living environment (e.g., noise level, sleep/waking hours, visitors, and decor)” (Erb et al., 2014, p. 44). These negotiations of responsibilities and compromises about the living environment were among the items comprising our subscale pertaining to not thinking of the other (see Table 1). We therefore believe that only reciprocation is a cultural value mismatch. The other type of mismatch, not thinking of the other, may be less culture-specific and more normative to adapting to new living situations during the transition to college. Hence, to answer the secondary goal connected to our hypothesis concerning antecedents of peer-peer cultural value mismatch, only reciprocation mismatch, not lack of consideration for the other, reliably differentiates the experience of first-generation from continuing-generation students.
Nonetheless, the results confirmed our predicted model concerning the correlates of peer-peer mismatch for both reciprocation and not thinking of the other. Peer-peer mismatch in both these areas predicted psychological distress. Psychological distress, in turn, was related to a higher frequency of reported academic problems; having more problems, in turn, was associated with a lower GPA during the first year of college. More importantly, despite students’ reports that these peer-peer mismatches do not impact academic grades (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015), our quantitative results suggest otherwise – both types of mismatch (lack of reciprocation and not thinking of the other) were indirectly linked to lower grades. The indirect link between peer-peer cultural mismatch and grades provides another instance of the importance of peers in academic development, particularly the importance of roommate relations (Erb et al., 2014; Schwartz et al., 2008; Wentzel, 1998).
Based on the results of Study 1, Study 2 focused on the peer-peer cultural value mismatch surrounding reciprocation – giving or offering a material or a service to one’s roommate but not receiving anything in return (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). We selected reciprocation mismatch because this was the peer-peer cultural value mismatch that was specific to first-generation college students in Study 1 and at the same time, was associated with negative outcomes.
However, we did not have enough information in Study 1 to determine whether this peer-peer cultural value mismatch is a function of social class differences between roommates, specifically differences in parental education. Thus, we were unable to demonstrate that students with lower levels of parental education than that of their roommate are the ones experiencing this mismatch at higher levels. We were also unable to test whether reporting more experiences with reciprocation mismatch than one’s roommate contributes to academic outcomes. Therefore, while our first study provided some support for Cultural Mismatch Theory (Stephens et al., 2012a) and the Theory of Social Change, Culture, and Human Development (Greenfield, 2009), our examination was incomplete.
In line with the Theory of Social Change, Culture, and Human Development (Greenfield, 2009), we expected that there would be a significant relationship between parent education mismatch and reciprocation mismatch. Because our findings in Study 1 indicated that the lower-SES member of the roommate pair is more likely to be affected by this mismatch, we modified our hypothesis to test whether participants whose parents had lower levels of education compared with their roommate’s parents would report higher levels of reciprocation mismatch than their roommate.
In line with Cultural Mismatch Theory (Stephens et al., 2012a), we predicted a significant relation between reciprocation mismatch and frequency of academic problems during the first year of college. Specifically, we hypothesized that participants who reported more experiences with reciprocation mismatch compared with their roommates (vis-a-vis the use of a difference score for each roommate) would report more academic problems.
In addition, pilot testing indicated that our survey took at least 25-minutes to complete. Minimum time needed for a given survey is an effective way to exclude careless responders (Curran, 2016). Curran further points out that careless responders are a source of noise that can potentially shift results. Individuals who spent less than 25-minutes on the survey responded in a fashion that appeared as though they were not attempting to read and answer survey questions. For example, they answered only a portion of questions or provided mostly “straight-line” responses across multiple questions; these behaviors provided further indication that fast responders were both careless and a source of noise. There is consensus in the field that 8–12 % is the modal rate of careless responding (Curran, 2016). Based on our minimum time criterion, we had 21 careless responders out of 188 participants or 11 %, so the number is within the modal range. It, therefore, seemed reasonable to eliminate participants taking less than 25 minutes in order to avoid shifting results because of noise from careless responding.
Among the 21 fast responders, six were situations where both roommates were fast responders. However, because data analysis relied on the responses of both roommates, the remaining 15 fast responders led to the elimination of 15 roommate pairs or 30 participants. This process resulted in a final sample of 152 participants (76 pairs). Sixty-four pairs identified as female; 11 pairs identified as male. In the remaining pair, one member identified as female, the other as a trans man. Ages ranged from 17 to 20 years old (M= 18.73, SD = .50). Ethnic backgrounds included Asian or Asian American (32.9 %), Latinx (27.6 %), White or European American (26.3 %), Multiracial (10.5 %), and Black or African American (2.6 %). This ethnic distribution roughly corresponded to the distribution of ethnicities at UCLA (UCLA Undergraduate Admissions, 2018–2019).
The majority of the sample was born in the United States (85 %) and none of the participants was an international or transfer student. Thus, all were first-time freshmen. Moreover, 45 % percent of participants lived with a roommate that was of the same ethnic background as themselves, and about half stated that they chose their roommate (51 %). Ninety-nine percent of the sample had lived with their roommate since Fall quarter, whereas only 1 % had lived with their roommate since the Winter quarter. Thus, almost all participants had lived with their roommates for the entire academic year – Fall, Winter, and Spring. Given that inter-group dynamics can be influenced by whether or not one’s roommate is of a similar ethnic background (Shook & Fazio, 2008a; Shook & Fazio, 2008b; Bresnahan et al., 2009) and whether or not one chooses one’s roommate (Shook & Fazio, 2008b), these variables were used as control variables in all analyses.
It is noteworthy to mention that this relative measure of social-class mismatch was complemented by a mean estimate of dyad-level difference in average parent education. For example, in the dyad-level mean estimate, a pair with a score of 8 and 4 are on average lower than the pair with 11 and 7, though the difference score, our relative measure, is the same 4 units. We therefore ran regression models with average parent education of both roommates as a covariate; and we found that the mismatch results remained. These findings echo our intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) preliminary analysis (see Data Analytic section), which suggested small dyad-level effects. Given the potential multicollinearity with our variable of interest (i.e., parent education mismatch) and sample size considerations, we did not include average roommate parent education in the final models.
Although we considered techniques of dyadic analysis, such as the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model, our sample size at the pair level (n = 76 roommate pairs) was not sufficient for rules of thumb that call for at least 100 dyads (Kline, 2011). In addition, our hypotheses dealt with individual-level (within-individual) effects rather than the roommate-level (within-dyad) effects; and so we measured parent-education differences as they were experienced by each individual roommate.
Because participants were clustered in roommate pairs, we also calculated the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between the dyad members. In the current study, we found the ICCs were not significant (.14, −.10; ps = .211, .386, respectively). This suggests that small proportions of the variance were explained by the dyadic structure of the data. This result is in line with previous findings showing that most behaviors are uncorrelated in roommate pairs (Eisenberg et al., 2013). This absence of correlation confirms the decision, explained earlier, to utilize scores for each individual participant in a roommate pair. Additionally, the design effects, an indicator of how much standard errors are underestimated calculated as 1 + (c – 1) x ICC where c is the average cluster size, were less than the critical value of 2 (Peugh, 2010). Therefore, to conserve power, we tested hypotheses using single-level analyses.
The greater the gap between the educational level of the two roommates’ parents, the greater the reciprocation mismatch reported by the roommate whose parents had the lower educational level. This finding, in line with our expectations, implies that, in a college dormitory, first-year students from households with significantly lower levels of parental education compared with their roommates will more often experience situations where they feel as though they offer materials or services to their roommates but do not receive anything back in return (e.g., food, academic resources, social and emotional support). This finding is directly in line with the Theory of Social Change, Culture and Human Development which suggests that transition from a social ecology characterized by collectivistic values (lower levels of parental education) to one that is more individualistic (higher levels of parental education of one’s roommates) may result in cultural value mismatch (Greenfield, 2009).
Also, as expected, the experience of cultural mismatch vis a vis reciprocation had negative implications for academic progress: The greater the reciprocation mismatch participants reported compared with their roommate, the more academic problems they reported. This finding suggests that first-year students who experience significantly more situations of reciprocation mismatch than their roommates will also experience more academic problems (e.g., difficulty with focusing, not turning in homework assignments). These findings are in line with Cultural Mismatch Theory (Stephens et al., 2012a) as well as survey and experimental work suggesting that students who experience a mismatch with the university environment are more likely to experience academic difficulties. Our findings also align with qualitative, survey and experimental work demonstrating the negative consequences of home-school cultural value mismatch – mismatch between collectivistic family obligations and individualistic academic obligations. This mismatch between value priorities in the home environment and value priorities in the college environment disrupts students’ ability to focus and learn in an academic environment (Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2018; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2021).
Our research program is unique in exploring the phenomena of cultural mismatch in the context of peer relations, and the implications this mismatch has for students’ health and academic outcomes. We began with a qualitative study that explored Latinx first-generation college students’ (students whose parents had stopped their formal education at high school or less) lived experiences with peer-peer cultural value mismatch (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). We then used survey methodology to generalize the findings to first-generation college students from other backgrounds in a larger multiethnic sample (Study 1), specifically for the experience of reciprocation mismatch – a mismatch consisting of giving or offering a material or service to one’s roommate but not receiving anything in return. Our survey methodology also enabled us to detail the interconnected nature concerning the health and academic costs associated with this mismatch. This interconnection is aligned with other forms of mismatch (Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2021).
By enlisting roommate pairs in Study 2, we were able to specify differences in parental education as the sociodemographic factor generating the experience of cultural mismatch. Quantifying differences in parental education, we found that these differences influenced whether or not and to what extent college roommates experienced reciprocation mismatch: Students whose parents had attained a lower education level than their roommate’s parents reported significantly more mismatch than their roommate. In addition, we also found that students who reported more mismatch than their roommate reported significantly more academic problems during the transition to college. The findings of Study 2 solidify the role of social class as a determinant of reciprocation mismatch, that is, a student feeling as though they offer materials (e.g., food) or help (e.g., emotional support) to their roommate, but do not receive anything back in return. Earlier research demonstrated that individuals of lower social class are more likely to give to others (Piff et al., 2010). The current research demonstrates that when giving is not reciprocated, reciprocation mismatch is more salient for those coming from a lower social class background. This salience negatively disrupts academics.
However, extrapolating out findings across both studies, peer-peer cultural value mismatch may be more disturbing both emotionally and academically to one member of the roommate pair: the one from the lower SES background. This is in line with earlier findings that priming individualistic values creates stress and reduces performance on academic tasks for first-generation college students, whereas priming collectivistic values creates neither stress nor reduced performance on academic tasks for continuing-generation students (Stephens et al., 2012a; Stephens et al., 2012b). We have to conclude that cultural differences are much less disturbing for those in a relatively high position in the social class hierarchy who subscribe to the dominant value system of universities. On the other hand, cultural differences are much more disturbing if one’s family occupies a relatively low position in the social-class hierarchy and one subscribes to a value system that is less accepted by higher education at large.
Our findings thus provide new instantiation of the theoretical idea that sociodemographic differences can result in cultural mismatch (Greenfield, 2009). They also extend empirical findings concerning the experience and costs of cultural mismatch among first-generation college students (Stephens et al., 2012a) to the context of peer relations.
Though the results of the current research are fruitful, they had three main limitations. The first was that both of our studies were cross-sectional in nature. In Studies 1 and 2, despite there being an intrinsic chronological sequence of antecedents (as parental education of participants and roommate dyads occurred before mismatch), this was not the case for the correlates of peer-peer cultural mismatch. As a result, though we found links between peer-peer cultural value mismatch and academic problems, the exact direction of this link cannot be confirmed; and, at the same time, it could be that a third variable, such as a general sense of interpersonal difficulties, explained these relations. Indeed, differences or “discrepancies” in perceptions of self and other can affect interpersonal relationships (e.g., Barranti et al., 2016). Longitudinal data, that include control for general interpersonal difficulties, would enable us to more rigorously ascertain how this process unfolds over time (Selig & Preacher, 2009). Our current and future research aims to address this limitation through longitudinal investigation of peer-peer cultural value mismatch in order to uncover how their relations with health and academic outcomes unfold over time. Based on the present research and cultural mismatch theory, we expect that this future research will establish that mismatch creates psychological distress, and as a result, creates academic problems that ultimately lead to lower grades over time.
The third limitation was that our conceptualization of peer-peer cultural mismatch was based on the qualitative experiences of one ethnocultural group – Latinx first-generation college students and encapsulated a collectivistic cultural perspective (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). We expect that roommates from more individualistic backgrounds also experience peer-peer cultural value mismatch from their own cultural perspective; we hope to explore the ramifications of cultural mismatch from the individualistic perspective in future studies.
Based on the only pre-existing empirical study on peer-peer cultural value mismatch, qualitative in nature (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015), we have quantified the experience by developing a new measure that demonstrates construct validity. This measure of peer-peer value mismatch will enable future researchers to further test the phenomenon of reciprocation mismatch in different kinds of post-secondary institutions as well as to include other variables in order to gain an in-depth understanding of risk and resilience factors contributing to antecedents and correlates of this mismatch. Although the second form of peer-peer mismatch, not thinking of the other, is included in this measure, we have concluded that this is not a mismatch produced by cultural value differences, but rather a situation that may be a normative part of adjusting to roommates during the transition to college (Erb et al., 2014).
Our research speaks to another phenomenon on many college campuses, which is for college administers to pair incoming students of different backgrounds in the same dorm to encourage interacting across various diversity-related dimensions. While these attempts are well-intended, findings in our research suggest they may backfire. However, diversity is essential in higher education in order to prepare students to interact and engage with multiple viewpoints (Milem, 2003). In addition, extensive research with younger groups indicates that diversity exposure is vital to social development, as well as mental health and academic outcomes (Graham, 2018). Therefore, rather than focusing on unanticipated consequences, we focus implications on encouraging awareness and programmatic development in residential life communities.
That is to say, the role of social class mismatch in students’ experience with peer-peer cultural mismatch uncovers the great need for interventions that augment cross-cultural understanding among student peers in academic settings. Currently, there is one intervention available that involves panel discussion where students of different social class backgrounds discuss their difficulties with transitioning to the university (conducted in-person: Stephens et al., 2014; conducted online: Townsend et al., 2019). Perhaps a similar intervention could be conducted in residential life communities, with a focus on cross-cultural understanding between roommates.

Sections

"[{\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\"], \"section\": \"\", \"text\": \"I volunteer to do things for you because I understand we all need that helping hand\\u2026but then when I don\\u2019t get it back its just like\\u2026we had math and we\\u2019re both taking [it]\\u2026she had one resource that I needed and she heard me\\u2026struggling for it and she didn\\u2019t do anything about it\\u2026 (Latinx first-generation college student; Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015)\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R20\", \"R8\"], \"section\": \"Introduction\", \"text\": \"The quote above represents the qualitative, lived experience, of a first-generation college student \\u2013 one whose parents had no more than a high-school education. This student supported her roommate, but felt as though she did not receive support back in return. This experience of reciprocation mismatch is part of a broader phenomenon known as peer-peer cultural value mismatch \\u2013 perceived mismatch between collectivistic ideologies and practices of one student and individualistic ideologies and practices of another. Collectivistic ideologies prioritize group goals and community cohesion; individualistic ideologies prioritize one\\u2019s personal needs and goals (Greenfield, 2009). Mismatch between collectivistic and individualistic peer behavior can be a source of stress for first-generation college students during the transition to college (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R13\", \"R26\", \"R30\", \"R1\"], \"section\": \"Rationale for an Empirical Investigation of Dormitory Roommates\", \"text\": \"Decades of research have demonstrated the powerful impact, both positive and negative, that peers may have on students\\u2019 development (Dennis et al., 2005; Juang et al., 2016). This impact begins in adolescence, once youth begin to spend more time with their peers; it continues as they move on to college (Lightfoot et al., 2018), at which point a significant percentage of students live in campus dormitories and have roommates (American College Health Association, 2019). At the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where the present research was conducted, almost all students live in the dormitories in their first year of college. Thus, in investigating peer relationships, empirical work among roommates living in dormitories is absolutely necessary.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R32\", \"R16\", \"R24\", \"R7\", \"R34\"], \"section\": \"Rationale for an Empirical Investigation of Dormitory Roommates\", \"text\": \"Roommate relationships may be particularly important during the transition to college. For the very first time, many students move away from their family home and live with someone that is a nonfamily member. Nearly 50 % of first-year college students in the U.S. report \\u201cfrequent\\u201d or \\u201coccasional\\u201d conflicts with roommates (Liu et al., 2008). Conflicts with roommates may be particularly impactful because they live in close proximity to one another, and are somewhat permanent peers, at least for a quarter/semester or an academic year. Indeed, roommate conflict negatively impacts students\\u2019 health and academic adjustment (e.g., stress, academic grades; Erb et al., 2014). However, only one study has described intergroup conflicts or situations that might occur in the dormitory (Jaggers & Iversen, 2012; i.e., racial stereotypes and interracial tension). Nonetheless, even this study did not deal with the issue of differing cultural values, the subject of our research. Though there is some work documenting that ethnic similarity (Bresnahan et al., 2009) and similar communication styles (Martin & Anderson, 1995) promote positive interpersonal outcomes among roommates, we have found no work on the role of social class and cultural value differences between roommates. Our research is a first attempt to fill these gaps by investigating peer-peer cultural value mismatch and the role of social class differences among roommates in experiencing this kind of mismatch.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\"], \"section\": \"Previous Research on Peer-Peer Cultural Value Mismatch\", \"text\": \"The concept of peer-peer cultural value mismatch (previously termed, peer-peer value conflicts) in a post-secondary education setting, was first introduced via a qualitative study with Latinx first-generation college students (71 % female; parental education range: no formal education \\u2013 graduated from high school) who were in their first year of study at UCLA, the site of the present two studies (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). Students took part in a group interview that ranged from 3 to 7 students. In the group interview, 57 % of these Latinx first-generation college students reported having experienced a peer-peer cultural value mismatch situation in which their behavior was collectivistic, but their peer\\u2019s behavior was individualistic; almost always these experiences were with a roommate.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\", \"R65\", \"R16\"], \"section\": \"Previous Research on Peer-Peer Cultural Value Mismatch\", \"text\": \"The experiences were of two different types: (1) Reciprocation mismatch: they gave or offered a material or a service to their roommate but did not receive anything in return; or (2) Not thinking of the other: students\\u2019 roommates were not considerate of their feelings or schedule (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). There were indications that Latinx first-generation college students felt these situations played a negative role in their college adjustment, particularly in regard to stress and negative emotions (components of mental health), as well as in the ability to control their attention (an aspect of mental health and academics). Though students denied that such situations impacted their grades, this response may have been due to the fact that they felt \\u201cfamily\\u201d had a stronger impact on them (Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015). In other words, students felt that cultural mismatch between family and academics had a stronger impact on their grades than did cultural mismatch situations with peers. Nonetheless, poor peer relations can undermine students\\u2019 academic adjustment (Erb et al., 2014).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R62\", \"R58\", \"R53\", \"R62\", \"R11\", \"R18\", \"R26\", \"R36\", \"R46\", \"R13\", \"R25\", \"R43\", \"R52\"], \"section\": \"Rationale for an Emphasis on First-Generation College Students\", \"text\": \"Nearly one-third of first-time freshmen across the nation are first-generation college students (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). In some studies, they are defined as students whose parents had no postsecondary education (e.g., Toutkoushian et al., 2019); in other studies, they are defined as students whose parents have not attained a four-year degree (e.g., Stephens et al., 2012a). However they are defined, they are more likely to drop out of college or take longer than their continuing-generation college peers (students whose parents had contrasting levels of postsecondary education) to earn their degrees (U.S. Department of Education, 2018; DeAngelo et al., 2011). These educational disparities have led researchers to investigate contributing factors. Peer relations have emerged as an important factor, especially for first-generation students. Poor peer relations contribute to negative adjustment outcomes for all college students (Gan et al., 2019; Juang et al., 2016; Maunder, 2018; Sadoughi & Hesampour, 2016). However, the contribution is greater for first-generation college students (Dennis et al., 2005; Jenkins et al., 2013; Posselt & Lipson, 2016), including those residing at college (Sriram et al., 2020).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R53\", \"R8\"], \"section\": \"Rationale for an Emphasis on First-Generation College Students\", \"text\": \"This impact may stem from the fact that first-generation college students represent a minority group within university settings. For this reason, their collectivistic, cultural practices, such as those involving the importance of community (Stephens et al., 2012a), are not always aligned with or reciprocated by their majority peers (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). Therefore, first-generation college students are at the forefront of our investigation because this is the population at highest risk of experiencing cultural value mismatch.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R20\", \"R53\", \"R55\"], \"section\": \"Theoretical Framework\", \"text\": \"Two seminal theories guided the current research. The first, Theory of Social Change, Culture, and Human Development, describes the antecedents of cultural mismatch at a broad scale (Greenfield, 2009). The second, Cultural Mismatch Theory, is a focused theory that describes the antecedents and consequences of a general notion of cultural mismatch in a university setting, with first-generation college status being central in the experience of cultural mismatch (Stephens et al., 2012a; 2012b).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R20\", \"R60\", \"R22\", \"R56\", \"R8\", \"R65\"], \"section\": \"Theory of Social Change, Culture, and Human Development\", \"text\": \"This theory conceptualizes cultural values as an adaptation to particular sociodemographic ecologies; it posits that movement from one ecology to another can result in a sense of cultural value mismatch or conflict (Greenfield, 2009). According to the theory, collectivistic values are adapted to ecologies in which formal education is limited and material resources are low \\u2013 an ecology experienced by the parents of first-generation college students. In contrast, individualistic values are adapted to ecologies in which opportunity for formal education is great and material resources are more abundant \\u2013 the ecology experienced by the parents of continuing generation college students, and the college environment itself. This theory predicts that, when individuals transition from an ecology characterized by collectivistic values to one that is more individualistic, cultural value mismatch can occur. Thus, central to the current research, this theory predicts that students with parents who have low levels of education will experience cultural value mismatch during their transition to post-secondary education. Empirical support for this theory has been gathered from research on Latinx youth from economically challenged homes at various stages in educational development (elementary: Trumbull et al., 2001; Greenfield & Quiroz, 2013; high school: C. Su\\u00e1rez-Orozco & M. Su\\u00e1rez-Orozco, 1995; four-year universities: Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R53\", \"R53\", \"R55\"], \"section\": \"Cultural Mismatch Theory\", \"text\": \"This theory provides a detailed account of cultural mismatch within four-year university settings (Stephens et al., 2012a). According to Cultural Mismatch Theory, four-year universities normalize independent or individualistic values. That is, priority is given to personal needs and goals. These values align with those of continuing-generation college students, but mismatch with the interdependent or collectivistic values that first-generation college students are socialized with at home. These students prioritize group goals and community cohesion. This situation results in cultural mismatch with the university culture for first-generation college students, but not for continuing-generation college students. This general sense of mismatch has been rigorously examined at research-centered institutions (private and public); it has been documented to cause a disruption in both health and academic performance during the first-year of college (Stephens et al., 2012a; Stephens et al., 2012b).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R55\", \"R53\"], \"section\": \"Cultural Mismatch Theory\", \"text\": \"The health effect manifests in an increase in the stress hormone, cortisol, and negative emotions when a student is exposed to experimentally induced cultural mismatch. For first-generation college students, priming individualistic values produced a significantly larger stress response than priming collectivistic values (Stephens et al., 2012b). However, for continuing-generation college students, there was no significant difference in stress in the different value conditions. A similar pattern unfolded for academic-related tasks: poorer performance on such tasks for first-generation college students primed with individualistic values compared with collectivistic primes; no performance differences with different value primes for continuing generation students (Stephens et al., 2012a). Thus, this theory has led to empirical support for the existence of cultural value mismatch in a university setting and has shown its explanatory power. Central to the current research, it implies that first-generation college status is an antecedent to experiencing cultural value mismatch and that mismatch has negative consequences for health and academic adjustment during the transition to college.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\"], \"section\": \"Theoretical Conceptualization of Peer-Peer Cultural Value Mismatch in the Dormitory\", \"text\": \"Based on these theoretical perspectives, we expected that the cultural orientation of first-generation college students (or students with lower levels of parental education) living in a dormitory would be more collectivistic, whereas the cultural orientation of continuing-generation roommates (or roommates with higher levels of parental education) would be more individualistic. The situation of social class mismatch among roommates thus sets the stage for peer-peer cultural value mismatch \\u2013 the experience of mismatch between the more collectivistic ideologies and practices of one student and the more individualistic ideologies and practices of another (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R53\", \"R55\", \"R66\"], \"section\": \"Current Research\", \"text\": \"The current research advances prior theoretical frameworks by examining the antecedents and correlates of an understudied form of mismatch \\u2013 peer-peer cultural value mismatch. In this research, we focus on the experience of peer-peer cultural value mismatch from the perspective of a student with a more collectivistic orientation living with a roommate who is more individualistic, as prior theory and research with students at four-year universities have indicated that cultural mismatch has greater consequences for first-generation than for continuing-generation college students (Stephens et al., 2012a; Stephens et al., 2012b; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2021). In two quantitative studies we examined antecedents and correlates of peer-peer cultural value mismatch in multiethnic samples.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R53\", \"R55\", \"R41\", \"R8\"], \"section\": \"Current Research\", \"text\": \"The contribution of this research is to enhance understanding of cultural mismatch within a key social context for entering college students, the university dormitory. Extant research has largely focused on a general sense of cultural mismatch between students\\u2019 collectivistic values and the individualistic values of the university institution (Stephens et al., 2012a; Stephens et al., 2012b; Phillips et al., 2020). With the exception of our qualitative study (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015), the social context of peer-peer cultural value mismatch among dormitory roommates has not been explored. Our two quantitative studies begin to fill this gap.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\", \"R59\", \"R6\", \"R17\", \"R21\", \"R5\"], \"section\": \"Antecedents of Peer-Peer Cultural Value Mismatch (Hypothesis 1)\", \"text\": \"The original study documented peer-peer cultural value mismatch in a sample of Latinx first-generation college students (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). Latinx students are considered a disadvantaged minority group, as are Black students (Townsend et al., 2019). Thus, because we had a diverse sample, we incorporated disadvantaged minority background as a variable within our analysis of antecedents. Including this variable within our analyses is important as empirical research suggests that disadvantaged minority students (e.g., Latinx, Black) hold strong collectivistic values (e.g., Brannon et al., 2015; Fuligni & Pedersen, 2002; Greenfield et al., 2003); and engagement in collectivistic practices, such as forming communities, is important in fostering positive college experiences in this demographic (Boettcher et al., 2019). Thus, we needed to ensure that our findings regarding the role of parent education in this particular type of mismatch hold above and beyond one particular minority group.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R53\", \"R55\"], \"section\": \"Antecedents of Peer-Peer Cultural Value Mismatch (Hypothesis 1)\", \"text\": \"Based on the work of Stephens and colleagues (2012a; 2012b), we hypothesized that first-generation college students would experience peer-peer cultural value mismatch more than their continuing-generation peers and that this relation would hold even after controlling for minority background. Such results would enable us to generalize the experience of peer-peer cultural value mismatch to first-generation college students from all ethnic backgrounds. We expected these relations to hold across two kinds of peer-peer cultural mismatch, one focused on reciprocation mismatch with one\\u2019s roommate, and the other focused on experiences with a roommate who does not think of the other person. Thus, a secondary goal of this hypothesis was to examine whether both types of mismatch reliably differentiate the experience of first-generation from that of continuing-generation students.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R55\", \"R53\"], \"section\": \"Correlates of Peer-Peer Cultural Value Mismatch (Hypothesis 2)\", \"text\": \"Our hypothesis concerning the associated correlates that unfold with the experience of peer-peer cultural value mismatch are based on the general, theoretical notion that cultural mismatch negatively impacts health (Stephens et al., 2012b) and academic adjustment (Stephens et al., 2012a) during the transition to college. In addition, the specific, interconnected paths involving health and academic performance are based on the findings from our qualitative study of peer-peer cultural value mismatch among Latinx students as well as other literature.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\", \"F1\", \"R31\", \"R35\", \"R37\", \"R69\", \"R44\", \"R45\", \"R8\", \"F1\"], \"section\": \"Correlates of Peer-Peer Cultural Value Mismatch (Hypothesis 2)\", \"text\": \"In Burgos-Cienfuegos et al. (2015), Latinx first-generation college students reported that cultural value mismatch with their dormitory roommates made them feel distressed. This finding led to the first hypothesized link in our model of correlates: peer-peer cultural value mismatch will predict psychological distress (Figure 1). Moreover, correlational and experimental studies suggest that individuals who experience psychological distress are also prone to experiencing problems with regulating their attention (Liston et al., 2008; Mathews & MacLeod, 1985; Meyers et al., 2014; Yiend, 2010) and engagement in learning activities (Ramirez & Beilock, 2011; Rozek et al., 2019). These findings led to the second link in our correlates model: psychological distress, will, in turn, relate to higher levels of attention and learning problems, which we term, academic problems. Indeed, issues with regulating one\\u2019s attention furnished one topic of conversation among participants who experienced these peer-peer mismatch situations in the small groups studied by Burgos-Cienfuegos and colleagues (2015). A logical correlate of academic problems is lower grade point averages (GPAs). Our model therefore predicted a significant link from academic problems to GPA. Lastly, because we expected psychological distress and academic problems to serve as the main mechanisms that relate peer-peer cultural value mismatch to GPA, we did not expect a direct link in the model from mismatch to GPA. Instead, we predicted that peer-peer cultural value mismatch would have a significant indirect effect on GPA through the paths of the intervening variables (Figure 1). We expected these relations to hold in two separate models, one for reciprocation mismatch and one for not thinking of the other.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"S17\", \"R61\"], \"section\": \"Participants.\", \"text\": \"Thirty percent of the students in our sample were first-generation college students, meaning that neither parent held any experience with postsecondary education (please see further details in our measures section). Our sample was ethnically diverse (Asian = 35; Latinx = 30; White or European American = 32; Black or African American = 4; Multiracial or Other Ethnicities = 9). These percentages roughly corresponded to the distribution of ethnicities at UCLA (UCLA Undergraduate Admissions, 2018\\u20132019).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R59\", \"R59\", \"R63\"], \"section\": \"Disadvantaged minority background.\", \"text\": \"Following Townsend et al. (2019), we distinguished between ethnic groups who are academically disadvantaged and those who are not. We labeled all students who identified themselves as Latinx, Black or African American or with one of these ethnic backgrounds and another background as 1 (disadvantaged minority). Students who identified with another ethnic background were labeled as 0 (e.g., White or European American, Asian); they were considered academically advantaged. This categorization aligns with definitions used by Townsend et al. (2019). It is important to note that by academically disadvantaged we are referring to the historical marginalization or minoritization of these ethnic groups in education and society (Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2023).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R12\", \"R47\", \"R58\"], \"section\": \"First-generation college student status.\", \"text\": \"Students who were considered first-generation college students came from households where their parents had no form of postsecondary education (coded as 1). Students who reported that their parents had at least some postsecondary education or higher were labeled as continuing generation college students (coded as 0). This cut-point has been frequently used in the field (Demetriou et al., 2017; Saenz et al., 2007; Toutkoushian et al., 2019) and had particular ecological relevance to our population. Specifically, among the Latinx first generation college students at UCLA that took part in our prior qualitative study on peer-peer cultural value mismatch, the highest level of parental education was high school; thus, no parent had any form of postsecondary education.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\"], \"section\": \"Peer-peer cultural value mismatch.\", \"text\": \"A 10-item measure assessing mismatch between the collectivistic ideologies and practices of dormitory residents and the individualistic ideologies and practices of their roommates was created using phenomena identified by Burgos-Cienfuegos et al. (2015). The measure assessed the frequency of two different types of peer-peer mismatch. The first type, reciprocation mismatch, included five-items; sample items included: \\u201cWhen going somewhere (e.g., store, coffee shop), I ask my roommate if he or she wants or needs anything but he or she never does the same for me,\\u201d and \\u201cI have shown support to my roommate when needed but he or she has not reciprocated support when I need it.\\u201d\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R39\"], \"section\": \"Peer-peer cultural value mismatch.\", \"text\": \"The second type, not thinking of the other, included 5-items; sample items included: \\u201cI often find myself cleaning common areas (e.g., restroom, trash) that my roommate and I both use because he or she never helps clean,\\u201d and \\u201cMy roommate makes a lot of noise (e.g., watches television, talks on the phone) when I am trying to study.\\u201d All items were prefaced with the following statement: \\u201cSince you started rooming with X, please state how often you have experienced the following with him or her\\u2026\\u201d. Responses ranged from 1 (Never) to 4 (Frequently). The Cronbach alphas were .89 and .78, respectively, indicating acceptable internal consistency among the items (Newton & Rudestam, 1999).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"T1\"], \"section\": \"Peer-peer cultural value mismatch.\", \"text\": \"A principal components analysis with promax rotation and Kaiser normalization was conducted with the items of the peer-peer cultural value mismatch measure. The analysis resulted in a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient of .818 (well above the recommended .50) and a Bartlett\\u2019s Test of Sphericity of \\u03c72(45) = 556.07, p < .001, suggesting significant sampling adequacy. As shown in Table 1, the analysis yielded two factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1.00 and item loadings of .40 or higher. As expected, the ten items of the peer-peer cultural value mismatch measure loaded onto the two hypothesized typologies: (a) Factor 1 represents items related to reciprocation mismatch and (b) Factor 2 represents items related to not thinking of the other. The two-factor solution explained 63.38 % of the variance.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R23\", \"R33\"], \"section\": \"Psychological distress.\", \"text\": \"A seven-item measure captured students\\u2019 feelings of distressed mood since they started UCLA. Students were asked to rate the extent (1 = Not at all to 5 = Extremely) to which they felt \\u201con edge,\\u201d \\u201cnervous,\\u201d \\u201cuneasy,\\u201d \\u201cunable to concentrate,\\u201d \\u201csad,\\u201d \\u201chopeless,\\u201d and \\u201cdiscouraged.\\u201d This measure, previously utilized with a diverse sample (Huynh & Fuligni, 2010), is an adapted version of Lorr and McNair\\u2019s (1971) Profile of Mood States and yielded an excellent alpha of .91. The only change from the original measure was to direct participants\\u2019 attention to their time at UCLA by prefacing the instrument with \\u201cSince you started at UCLA.\\u201d\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R57\"], \"section\": \"Academic problems.\", \"text\": \"A 6-item measure of academic problems was utilized. Students were asked to rate (1 = Never to 5 = Always) how many times they experienced certain situations since they started at UCLA. These situations included attention (three-items; e.g., \\u201chad a difficult time focusing on studying\\u201d) and learning problems (three-items; e.g., \\u201cdid not turn in homework that was due\\u201d; adapted from Telzer & Fuligni, 2009). The Cronbach\\u2019s alpha was .84, indicating good internal consistency.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R3\", \"R3\", \"R4\"], \"section\": \"Data Analytic Plan\", \"text\": \"Correlates of peer-peer value mismatch were assessed via path analysis, a structural equation modeling technique, using Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation in EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 2006) for Windows. A separate model for the interrelations with other variables of each type of peer-peer mismatch \\u2013 reciprocation mismatch and not thinking of the other \\u2013 was planned (Hypothesis 2). Separate models were appropriate to the number of observed variables (p = 4) and sample size (N = 110). A saturated model with p variables has p(p + 1)/2 free parameters to be estimated (Bentler, 2006). In the current study, there were p = 4 observed variables in this model, resulting in 10 parameters to be estimated. Bentler and Chou (1987) suggested a sample size of 5\\u201310 participants for every free parameter, and this rule of thumb is consistent with our current sample size of 110.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"F1\", \"R9\", \"R9\", \"R64\"], \"section\": \"Data Analytic Plan\", \"text\": \"The hypothesized models (Figure 1) were based on theoretical considerations and previous literature; separate models were tested for each of the peer-peer cultural value mismatch factors that emerged from our data. Model fit was evaluated using chi-square (x2), comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The model is a \\u201cgood\\u201d fit if the x2 is not significant or near non-significance, the CFI is greater than or equal to .95, and RMSEA is less than or equal to .05 (Byrne, 2006). The model is of \\u201cmoderate\\u201d fit when at least two of these are met (Byrne, 2006; Vasquez-Salgado & Chavira, 2014).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R3\", \"R27\", \"R27\", \"R29\", \"T2\"], \"section\": \"Data Analytic Plan\", \"text\": \"Once appropriate fit was established, direct and indirect effects were examined (Bentler, 2006). A direct effect is when one variable predicts another, and an indirect effect is when one variable predicts another variable through one or more intervening variables (Kline, 2011). In order to confirm whether an indirect effect was the main source of influence, a direct path (within the model) between those variables must not be statistically significant. If the direct path is significant, this implies that the indirect effect only explained part of the relation between one variable and another (Kline, 2011; Kohen et al., 2008). Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all variables of interest are presented in Table 2.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"F1\", \"F1\"], \"section\": \"Correlates of Peer-Peer Cultural Value Mismatch\", \"text\": \"This section will focus on the correlates of peer-peer cultural value mismatch. We hypothesized that peer-peer cultural value mismatch would predict psychological distress (Figure 1). In turn, we expected that psychological distress would relate to more academic problems, and that such problems would predict lower grade point average (GPA). In addition, we did not expect a significant direct link from peer-peer cultural value mismatch to GPA (Figure 1). Instead, we expected a that peer-peer cultural value mismatch would have a significant indirect effect on GPA through the paths of the intervening variables. Below, we discuss this hypothesis with two forms of mismatch.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"F2\"], \"section\": \"Reciprocation Mismatch\", \"text\": \"This model examined relationships of reciprocation mismatch during the first year of college with psychological distress, academic problems, and GPA. As predicted, the path model (Figure 2) fit the data well, \\u03c72(2, N = 110) = 1.88, p = .391, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00. More mismatch around reciprocation predicted higher levels of psychological distress. In turn, higher levels of psychological distress predicted greater academic problems. Finally, greater academic problems related to lower college GPA during the first year.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"F3\"], \"section\": \"Not Thinking About the Other\", \"text\": \"This model examined relationships of not thinking of the other during the first year of college with psychological distress, academic problems, and GPA. Like reciprocation mismatch, the path model (Figure 3) fit the data well, \\u03c72(2, N = 110) = 1.36, p = .505, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00. As expected, more mismatch involving not thinking of the other predicted higher levels of psychological distress. In turn, higher levels of psychological distress predicted greater academic problems. Finally, greater academic problems related to lower college GPA during the first year.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R20\", \"R53\", \"R53\", \"R20\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"The antecedents of reciprocation mismatch \\u2013 giving or offering a material or a service to one\\u2019s roommate but not receiving anything in return, one type of peer-peer cultural value mismatch, was in line with expectations and prior research (Greenfield, 2009; Stephens et al., 2012a). We found that first-generation college students, regardless of disadvantaged minority background, more often experienced this form of peer-peer cultural value mismatch than continuing-generation students. This finding is in line with Cultural Mismatch Theory (Stephens et al., 2012a), which posits that first-generation college students are more likely than continuing generation students to experience a general sense of mismatch with the university culture. These findings are also aligned with the Theory of Social Change, Culture, and Human Development (Greenfield, 2009) which posits that social class, rather than ethnicity, is a main contributor to cultural values, and therefore to the experience of cultural value mismatch; in this case, being a first-generation college student was the main social-class contributor.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R16\", \"T1\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"Contrary to our hypothesis, not thinking of the other \\u2013 the student\\u2019s roommate was not considerate of their feelings or schedule \\u2013 did not relate to either first-generation or disadvantaged minority status. This finding suggests that feeling as though your roommate is not being considerate can be due to several factors outside of cultural value mismatch and may be a situation that is more normative in roommate relations. Indeed, a review of research on roommate relationships in the dormitory noted that dormitory roommates have frequent \\u201cnegotiation of responsibilities and compromises about the living environment (e.g., noise level, sleep/waking hours, visitors, and decor)\\u201d (Erb et al., 2014, p. 44). These negotiations of responsibilities and compromises about the living environment were among the items comprising our subscale pertaining to not thinking of the other (see Table 1). We therefore believe that only reciprocation is a cultural value mismatch. The other type of mismatch, not thinking of the other, may be less culture-specific and more normative to adapting to new living situations during the transition to college. Hence, to answer the secondary goal connected to our hypothesis concerning antecedents of peer-peer cultural value mismatch, only reciprocation mismatch, not lack of consideration for the other, reliably differentiates the experience of first-generation from continuing-generation students.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\", \"R16\", \"R48\", \"R68\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"Nonetheless, the results confirmed our predicted model concerning the correlates of peer-peer mismatch for both reciprocation and not thinking of the other. Peer-peer mismatch in both these areas predicted psychological distress. Psychological distress, in turn, was related to a higher frequency of reported academic problems; having more problems, in turn, was associated with a lower GPA during the first year of college. More importantly, despite students\\u2019 reports that these peer-peer mismatches do not impact academic grades (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015), our quantitative results suggest otherwise \\u2013 both types of mismatch (lack of reciprocation and not thinking of the other) were indirectly linked to lower grades. The indirect link between peer-peer cultural mismatch and grades provides another instance of the importance of peers in academic development, particularly the importance of roommate relations (Erb et al., 2014; Schwartz et al., 2008; Wentzel, 1998).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\"], \"section\": \"Study 2\", \"text\": \"Based on the results of Study 1, Study 2 focused on the peer-peer cultural value mismatch surrounding reciprocation \\u2013 giving or offering a material or a service to one\\u2019s roommate but not receiving anything in return (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). We selected reciprocation mismatch because this was the peer-peer cultural value mismatch that was specific to first-generation college students in Study 1 and at the same time, was associated with negative outcomes.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R53\", \"R20\"], \"section\": \"Study 2\", \"text\": \"However, we did not have enough information in Study 1 to determine whether this peer-peer cultural value mismatch is a function of social class differences between roommates, specifically differences in parental education. Thus, we were unable to demonstrate that students with lower levels of parental education than that of their roommate are the ones experiencing this mismatch at higher levels. We were also unable to test whether reporting more experiences with reciprocation mismatch than one\\u2019s roommate contributes to academic outcomes. Therefore, while our first study provided some support for Cultural Mismatch Theory (Stephens et al., 2012a) and the Theory of Social Change, Culture, and Human Development (Greenfield, 2009), our examination was incomplete.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R20\"], \"section\": \"Antecedents of Reciprocation Mismatch (Hypothesis 1)\", \"text\": \"In line with the Theory of Social Change, Culture, and Human Development (Greenfield, 2009), we expected that there would be a significant relationship between parent education mismatch and reciprocation mismatch. Because our findings in Study 1 indicated that the lower-SES member of the roommate pair is more likely to be affected by this mismatch, we modified our hypothesis to test whether participants whose parents had lower levels of education compared with their roommate\\u2019s parents would report higher levels of reciprocation mismatch than their roommate.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R53\"], \"section\": \"Correlates of Reciprocation Mismatch (Hypothesis 2)\", \"text\": \"In line with Cultural Mismatch Theory (Stephens et al., 2012a), we predicted a significant relation between reciprocation mismatch and frequency of academic problems during the first year of college. Specifically, we hypothesized that participants who reported more experiences with reciprocation mismatch compared with their roommates (vis-a-vis the use of a difference score for each roommate) would report more academic problems.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R10\", \"R10\"], \"section\": \"Participants.\", \"text\": \"In addition, pilot testing indicated that our survey took at least 25-minutes to complete. Minimum time needed for a given survey is an effective way to exclude careless responders (Curran, 2016). Curran further points out that careless responders are a source of noise that can potentially shift results. Individuals who spent less than 25-minutes on the survey responded in a fashion that appeared as though they were not attempting to read and answer survey questions. For example, they answered only a portion of questions or provided mostly \\u201cstraight-line\\u201d responses across multiple questions; these behaviors provided further indication that fast responders were both careless and a source of noise. There is consensus in the field that 8\\u201312 % is the modal rate of careless responding (Curran, 2016). Based on our minimum time criterion, we had 21 careless responders out of 188 participants or 11 %, so the number is within the modal range. It, therefore, seemed reasonable to eliminate participants taking less than 25 minutes in order to avoid shifting results because of noise from careless responding.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R61\"], \"section\": \"Participants.\", \"text\": \"Among the 21 fast responders, six were situations where both roommates were fast responders. However, because data analysis relied on the responses of both roommates, the remaining 15 fast responders led to the elimination of 15 roommate pairs or 30 participants. This process resulted in a final sample of 152 participants (76 pairs). Sixty-four pairs identified as female; 11 pairs identified as male. In the remaining pair, one member identified as female, the other as a trans man. Ages ranged from 17 to 20 years old (M= 18.73, SD = .50). Ethnic backgrounds included Asian or Asian American (32.9 %), Latinx (27.6 %), White or European American (26.3 %), Multiracial (10.5 %), and Black or African American (2.6 %). This ethnic distribution roughly corresponded to the distribution of ethnicities at UCLA (UCLA Undergraduate Admissions, 2018\\u20132019).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R50\", \"R51\", \"R7\", \"R51\"], \"section\": \"Participants.\", \"text\": \"The majority of the sample was born in the United States (85 %) and none of the participants was an international or transfer student. Thus, all were first-time freshmen. Moreover, 45 % percent of participants lived with a roommate that was of the same ethnic background as themselves, and about half stated that they chose their roommate (51 %). Ninety-nine percent of the sample had lived with their roommate since Fall quarter, whereas only 1 % had lived with their roommate since the Winter quarter. Thus, almost all participants had lived with their roommates for the entire academic year \\u2013 Fall, Winter, and Spring. Given that inter-group dynamics can be influenced by whether or not one\\u2019s roommate is of a similar ethnic background (Shook & Fazio, 2008a; Shook & Fazio, 2008b; Bresnahan et al., 2009) and whether or not one chooses one\\u2019s roommate (Shook & Fazio, 2008b), these variables were used as control variables in all analyses.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"S43\"], \"section\": \"Parent education level mismatch.\", \"text\": \"It is noteworthy to mention that this relative measure of social-class mismatch was complemented by a mean estimate of dyad-level difference in average parent education. For example, in the dyad-level mean estimate, a pair with a score of 8 and 4 are on average lower than the pair with 11 and 7, though the difference score, our relative measure, is the same 4 units. We therefore ran regression models with average parent education of both roommates as a covariate; and we found that the mismatch results remained. These findings echo our intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) preliminary analysis (see Data Analytic section), which suggested small dyad-level effects. Given the potential multicollinearity with our variable of interest (i.e., parent education mismatch) and sample size considerations, we did not include average roommate parent education in the final models.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R27\"], \"section\": \"Parent education level mismatch.\", \"text\": \"Although we considered techniques of dyadic analysis, such as the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model, our sample size at the pair level (n = 76 roommate pairs) was not sufficient for rules of thumb that call for at least 100 dyads (Kline, 2011). In addition, our hypotheses dealt with individual-level (within-individual) effects rather than the roommate-level (within-dyad) effects; and so we measured parent-education differences as they were experienced by each individual roommate.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R40\"], \"section\": \"Data Analytic Plan\", \"text\": \"Because participants were clustered in roommate pairs, we also calculated the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between the dyad members. In the current study, we found the ICCs were not significant (.14, \\u2212.10; ps = .211, .386, respectively). This suggests that small proportions of the variance were explained by the dyadic structure of the data. This result is in line with previous findings showing that most behaviors are uncorrelated in roommate pairs (Eisenberg et al., 2013). This absence of correlation confirms the decision, explained earlier, to utilize scores for each individual participant in a roommate pair. Additionally, the design effects, an indicator of how much standard errors are underestimated calculated as 1 + (c \\u2013 1) x ICC where c is the average cluster size, were less than the critical value of 2 (Peugh, 2010). Therefore, to conserve power, we tested hypotheses using single-level analyses.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R20\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"The greater the gap between the educational level of the two roommates\\u2019 parents, the greater the reciprocation mismatch reported by the roommate whose parents had the lower educational level. This finding, in line with our expectations, implies that, in a college dormitory, first-year students from households with significantly lower levels of parental education compared with their roommates will more often experience situations where they feel as though they offer materials or services to their roommates but do not receive anything back in return (e.g., food, academic resources, social and emotional support). This finding is directly in line with the Theory of Social Change, Culture and Human Development which suggests that transition from a social ecology characterized by collectivistic values (lower levels of parental education) to one that is more individualistic (higher levels of parental education of one\\u2019s roommates) may result in cultural value mismatch (Greenfield, 2009).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R53\", \"R65\", \"R67\", \"R66\"], \"section\": \"Discussion\", \"text\": \"Also, as expected, the experience of cultural mismatch vis a vis reciprocation had negative implications for academic progress: The greater the reciprocation mismatch participants reported compared with their roommate, the more academic problems they reported. This finding suggests that first-year students who experience significantly more situations of reciprocation mismatch than their roommates will also experience more academic problems (e.g., difficulty with focusing, not turning in homework assignments). These findings are in line with Cultural Mismatch Theory (Stephens et al., 2012a) as well as survey and experimental work suggesting that students who experience a mismatch with the university environment are more likely to experience academic difficulties. Our findings also align with qualitative, survey and experimental work demonstrating the negative consequences of home-school cultural value mismatch \\u2013 mismatch between collectivistic family obligations and individualistic academic obligations. This mismatch between value priorities in the home environment and value priorities in the college environment disrupts students\\u2019 ability to focus and learn in an academic environment (Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2015; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2018; Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2021).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\", \"R66\"], \"section\": \"General Discussion\", \"text\": \"Our research program is unique in exploring the phenomena of cultural mismatch in the context of peer relations, and the implications this mismatch has for students\\u2019 health and academic outcomes. We began with a qualitative study that explored Latinx first-generation college students\\u2019 (students whose parents had stopped their formal education at high school or less) lived experiences with peer-peer cultural value mismatch (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). We then used survey methodology to generalize the findings to first-generation college students from other backgrounds in a larger multiethnic sample (Study 1), specifically for the experience of reciprocation mismatch \\u2013 a mismatch consisting of giving or offering a material or service to one\\u2019s roommate but not receiving anything in return. Our survey methodology also enabled us to detail the interconnected nature concerning the health and academic costs associated with this mismatch. This interconnection is aligned with other forms of mismatch (Vasquez-Salgado et al., 2021).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R42\"], \"section\": \"General Discussion\", \"text\": \"By enlisting roommate pairs in Study 2, we were able to specify differences in parental education as the sociodemographic factor generating the experience of cultural mismatch. Quantifying differences in parental education, we found that these differences influenced whether or not and to what extent college roommates experienced reciprocation mismatch: Students whose parents had attained a lower education level than their roommate\\u2019s parents reported significantly more mismatch than their roommate. In addition, we also found that students who reported more mismatch than their roommate reported significantly more academic problems during the transition to college. The findings of Study 2 solidify the role of social class as a determinant of reciprocation mismatch, that is, a student feeling as though they offer materials (e.g., food) or help (e.g., emotional support) to their roommate, but do not receive anything back in return. Earlier research demonstrated that individuals of lower social class are more likely to give to others (Piff et al., 2010). The current research demonstrates that when giving is not reciprocated, reciprocation mismatch is more salient for those coming from a lower social class background. This salience negatively disrupts academics.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R53\", \"R55\"], \"section\": \"General Discussion\", \"text\": \"However, extrapolating out findings across both studies, peer-peer cultural value mismatch may be more disturbing both emotionally and academically to one member of the roommate pair: the one from the lower SES background. This is in line with earlier findings that priming individualistic values creates stress and reduces performance on academic tasks for first-generation college students, whereas priming collectivistic values creates neither stress nor reduced performance on academic tasks for continuing-generation students (Stephens et al., 2012a; Stephens et al., 2012b). We have to conclude that cultural differences are much less disturbing for those in a relatively high position in the social class hierarchy who subscribe to the dominant value system of universities. On the other hand, cultural differences are much more disturbing if one\\u2019s family occupies a relatively low position in the social-class hierarchy and one subscribes to a value system that is less accepted by higher education at large.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R20\", \"R53\"], \"section\": \"General Discussion\", \"text\": \"Our findings thus provide new instantiation of the theoretical idea that sociodemographic differences can result in cultural mismatch (Greenfield, 2009). They also extend empirical findings concerning the experience and costs of cultural mismatch among first-generation college students (Stephens et al., 2012a) to the context of peer relations.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R2\", \"R49\"], \"section\": \"Limitations and Future Directions\", \"text\": \"Though the results of the current research are fruitful, they had three main limitations. The first was that both of our studies were cross-sectional in nature. In Studies 1 and 2, despite there being an intrinsic chronological sequence of antecedents (as parental education of participants and roommate dyads occurred before mismatch), this was not the case for the correlates of peer-peer cultural mismatch. As a result, though we found links between peer-peer cultural value mismatch and academic problems, the exact direction of this link cannot be confirmed; and, at the same time, it could be that a third variable, such as a general sense of interpersonal difficulties, explained these relations. Indeed, differences or \\u201cdiscrepancies\\u201d in perceptions of self and other can affect interpersonal relationships (e.g., Barranti et al., 2016). Longitudinal data, that include control for general interpersonal difficulties, would enable us to more rigorously ascertain how this process unfolds over time (Selig & Preacher, 2009). Our current and future research aims to address this limitation through longitudinal investigation of peer-peer cultural value mismatch in order to uncover how their relations with health and academic outcomes unfold over time. Based on the present research and cultural mismatch theory, we expect that this future research will establish that mismatch creates psychological distress, and as a result, creates academic problems that ultimately lead to lower grades over time.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\"], \"section\": \"Limitations and Future Directions\", \"text\": \"The third limitation was that our conceptualization of peer-peer cultural mismatch was based on the qualitative experiences of one ethnocultural group \\u2013 Latinx first-generation college students and encapsulated a collectivistic cultural perspective (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015). We expect that roommates from more individualistic backgrounds also experience peer-peer cultural value mismatch from their own cultural perspective; we hope to explore the ramifications of cultural mismatch from the individualistic perspective in future studies.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R8\", \"R16\"], \"section\": \"Implications for Research and Practice\", \"text\": \"Based on the only pre-existing empirical study on peer-peer cultural value mismatch, qualitative in nature (Burgos-Cienfuegos et al., 2015), we have quantified the experience by developing a new measure that demonstrates construct validity. This measure of peer-peer value mismatch will enable future researchers to further test the phenomenon of reciprocation mismatch in different kinds of post-secondary institutions as well as to include other variables in order to gain an in-depth understanding of risk and resilience factors contributing to antecedents and correlates of this mismatch. Although the second form of peer-peer mismatch, not thinking of the other, is included in this measure, we have concluded that this is not a mismatch produced by cultural value differences, but rather a situation that may be a normative part of adjusting to roommates during the transition to college (Erb et al., 2014).\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R38\", \"R19\"], \"section\": \"Implications for Research and Practice\", \"text\": \"Our research speaks to another phenomenon on many college campuses, which is for college administers to pair incoming students of different backgrounds in the same dorm to encourage interacting across various diversity-related dimensions. While these attempts are well-intended, findings in our research suggest they may backfire. However, diversity is essential in higher education in order to prepare students to interact and engage with multiple viewpoints (Milem, 2003). In addition, extensive research with younger groups indicates that diversity exposure is vital to social development, as well as mental health and academic outcomes (Graham, 2018). Therefore, rather than focusing on unanticipated consequences, we focus implications on encouraging awareness and programmatic development in residential life communities.\"}, {\"pmc\": \"PMC10392955\", \"pmid\": \"37529117\", \"reference_ids\": [\"R54\", \"R59\"], \"section\": \"Implications for Research and Practice\", \"text\": \"That is to say, the role of social class mismatch in students\\u2019 experience with peer-peer cultural mismatch uncovers the great need for interventions that augment cross-cultural understanding among student peers in academic settings. Currently, there is one intervention available that involves panel discussion where students of different social class backgrounds discuss their difficulties with transitioning to the university (conducted in-person: Stephens et al., 2014; conducted online: Townsend et al., 2019). Perhaps a similar intervention could be conducted in residential life communities, with a focus on cross-cultural understanding between roommates.\"}]"

Metadata

"{}"