View in EDS

The Protective Paradox: Can School Connectedness Buffer Socioeconomic Disparities in Adolescent Mental Health?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Protective Paradox: Can School Connectedness Buffer Socioeconomic Disparities in Adolescent Mental Health?
Authors: Ariyo, Esther1 (AUTHOR) esther.ariyo@essex.ac.uk, Michael, Amurtiya2 (AUTHOR), Ajala, Cindy Oreoluwa3 (AUTHOR)
Source: Journal of Adolescence. Jul2026, Vol. 98 Issue 5, p1501-1511. 11p.
Subject Terms: *Socioeconomic status, *School involvement, *Psychological resilience, *Mental health services, Low-income countries, Psychological distress, Adolescent health, Well-being
Abstract: Introduction: Socioeconomic status (SES) is a well‐established factor influencing adolescents' mental health, as young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to experience stress, anxiety, and poorer overall wellbeing. One factor that may help protect students from these negative outcomes is school connectedness which is the feeling of belonging, support, and positive relationships within the school environment. Although school connectedness is known to promote healthier psychological development, it remains unclear whether it can specifically reduce mental health inequalities linked to SES, especially in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods: This study interrogates a critical gap in resilience theory: Can school connectedness effectively buffer the psychological consequences of socioeconomic disadvantage in resource‐constrained environments? Through a cross‐sectional design involving 535 Nigerian adolescents (mean age = 13.25 years; 53.6% female), we employed psychometrically validated measures including the California Healthy Kids Survey (school connectedness), WHO‐5 Wellbeing Index, and Kessler‐6 Psychological Distress Scale. Results: Result shows that school connectedness significantly predicted enhanced wellbeing (β = 1.98, p < 0.001) and reduced distress (β = −0.73, p = 0.001), but did not moderate the SES‐mental health relationship. This result challenges conventional assumptions in resilience frameworks and raises crucial questions about the contextual limits of school‐based protective factors in LMIC settings. Conclusions: The study makes three key contributions: (1) empirical evidence from an understudied Global South context, (2) theoretical contribution to the resilience models, and (3) practical implications for designing multi‐level mental health interventions in resource‐constrained educational systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Adolescence is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Introduction: Socioeconomic status (SES) is a well‐established factor influencing adolescents' mental health, as young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to experience stress, anxiety, and poorer overall wellbeing. One factor that may help protect students from these negative outcomes is school connectedness which is the feeling of belonging, support, and positive relationships within the school environment. Although school connectedness is known to promote healthier psychological development, it remains unclear whether it can specifically reduce mental health inequalities linked to SES, especially in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods: This study interrogates a critical gap in resilience theory: Can school connectedness effectively buffer the psychological consequences of socioeconomic disadvantage in resource‐constrained environments? Through a cross‐sectional design involving 535 Nigerian adolescents (mean age = 13.25 years; 53.6% female), we employed psychometrically validated measures including the California Healthy Kids Survey (school connectedness), WHO‐5 Wellbeing Index, and Kessler‐6 Psychological Distress Scale. Results: Result shows that school connectedness significantly predicted enhanced wellbeing (β = 1.98, p < 0.001) and reduced distress (β = −0.73, p = 0.001), but did not moderate the SES‐mental health relationship. This result challenges conventional assumptions in resilience frameworks and raises crucial questions about the contextual limits of school‐based protective factors in LMIC settings. Conclusions: The study makes three key contributions: (1) empirical evidence from an understudied Global South context, (2) theoretical contribution to the resilience models, and (3) practical implications for designing multi‐level mental health interventions in resource‐constrained educational systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:01401971
DOI:10.1002/jad.70157