Hidden Pathways of Potential: Profiling Psychosocial Diversity in Financially Disadvantaged Singapore Adolescents

• In Event: Profiles, Perspectives, and Pressures: Understanding Adolescent Flourishing, Motivation, and Relationships in Singapore

Abstract

Globally, economically disadvantaged adolescents face intersecting structural and psychosocial challenges that shape not only their educational outcomes but also their imagined futures (OECD, 2018; Sirin, 2005). While many education systems—including Singapore’s—have implemented policies promoting meritocratic inclusion and academic mobility, disparities remain in how low-income students navigate school structures, access support, and form aspirations (Tan & Dimmock, 2015). In particular, financial at-risk (FAR) adolescents from the bottom 20% of the socioeconomic distribution often contend with both external resource constraints (e.g., limited material support) and internalized perceptions of marginalization (Kao & Tienda, 1998; Eccles, 2009). Despite these challenges, FAR adolescents are frequently treated as a homogenous group, obscuring important within-group differences in how they interpret opportunity, regulate emotion, and develop a sense of purpose or direction (Benner et al., 2016, Prins & Zholdoshalieva, 2025). Such reductionist framings risk masking the presence of psychosocial strengths—including self-efficacy, adaptability, and resilience—that can support development and future-oriented thinking even under constraint (Masten, 2014; Bandura, 1997; Martin et al., 2012). The tensions between structural inequality and individual capacity raise urgent questions about how we conceptualize and support “potential” among financially disadvantaged youth. In response, there is growing recognition of the need for person-centered, strength-based approaches that illuminate the diverse developmental pathways of adolescents at the margins—not merely in terms of academic performance, but in how they construct meaning, belonging, and future selves (Winn, 2022; Zipin et al., 2015).
In response to these gaps, this study pursued three key objectives. First, we aimed to empirically identify distinct psychosocial and contextual profiles among FAR adolescents. Second, we examined how these profiles were differentially associated with both retrospective academic performance and future educational aspirations. Third, we sought to inform equity-sensitive approaches in educational research and practice by recognizing multiple—and often unseen—developmental pathways of FAR potential.

Drawing on data from the DREAMS longitudinal study in Singapore, we applied latent profile analysis to a sample of over 600 FAR students aged 13-14, in the bottom 20% (B20) of the socioeconomic distribution, using standardized indicators spanning self-efficacy, adaptability, resilience, mental health, perceived social support, and school experience. This person-centered approach revealed five distinct psychosocial profiles that are often masked by SES-level analyses alone: Psychosocially Thriving, Moderately Functioning, Emotionally Vulnerable, Low Support & Belonging, and Emotionally Buffered but Under-Challenged. Profiles also differed significantly in retrospective academic performance, indexed by reversed Primary School Leaving Examination scores. Although effect sizes were modest (η² = .03), students in the Psychosocially Thriving profile outperformed those in the Low Support & Belonging group, suggesting that socio-emotional and familial resources may help buffer the effects of economic hardship on academic outcomes. In addition to academic outcomes, we found a significant association between profile membership and post-secondary intentions (χ²(28, N = 513) = 67.78, p < .001). For example, students in the Buffered but Under-Challenged profile were more likely to express a preference for polytechnic pathways, while those in the Low Support and Emotionally Vulnerable groups reported higher levels of uncertainty. These findings suggest that internal resources and perceived support systems may influence not only academic performance but also the capacity to form and sustain educational aspirations. Moreover, we found that students’ life narratives revealed SES-based disparities in emotional and experiential landscapes. Those in the B20 group were significantly more likely to report turning points defined by family instability, social pain, and academic struggle, while their higher-SES peers described more balanced or positive events, often involving meaningful teacher relationships or goal-oriented milestones. Together, these findings illuminate the complex, often overlooked dimensions of diversity and potential within FAR adolescents. They call for a shift away from universal, one-size-fits-all interventions toward differentiated, strength-based approaches that acknowledge the diverse ways financially disadvantaged adolescents navigate adversity. By revealing the psychosocial and aspirational heterogeneity within a uniformly low-SES group, this study aims to provide a compelling case for more nuanced learner profiling and responsive educational design. In this light, equity is not solely about leveling the playing field, but about recognizing and nurturing the varied trajectories through which FAR students come to envision—and realize—their futures.

Authors

• Azi Jamaludin, Nanyang Technological University

• Chiang Wee Heng, Ministry of Education - Singapore

• Sandeep Singh, National Institute of Education - Nanyang Technological University

• Aik Lim Tan, National Institute of Education - Nanyang Technological University

• Ser Hong Tan, National Institute of Education - Nanyang Technological University

• Imelda Santos Caleon, National Institute of Education - Nanyang Technological University

• Andy Khong, Nanyang Technological University