Socioeconomic Status and Creativity in Chinese Adolescents: A Serial Mediation Model of Objectified Cultural Capital and Digital Devices

• In Event: Equity, Inclusion, and Marginalized Students

Proposal

Introduction: Creativity-defined as producing ideas that are both novel and useful-drives competitive advantage worldwide (Sternberg, 2020; Yong, Mannucci, & Lander, 2020), and family socioeconomic status (SES) is a key determinant of creativity (Lu, Ding, & Nie, 2024; Kupczyszyn, Vanessa, & Oros, 2024). Bourdieu’s (1986) cultural capital theory provides a lens to interpret how parental cultural resources are converted into their children’s social advantages, which distinguishes three forms: embodied, objectified, and institutionalized (Kraaykamp et al., 2010).
However, with the advent of the digital era, digital devices (e.g., laptops, applications) have become vital family resources for adolescent development, which not only reinforce existing traditional inequalities (Van Dijk, 2019), but also pose a challenge to traditional cultural capital theory. Some studies regard digital devices as one dimension of objectified cultural capital, which overlooks the fact that the cultural capital attribute needs to be manifested through usage rather than mere possession (Gomez, 2020). Instead, several studies indicated that digital devices function as a factor closely associated with objectified cultural capital, which has a positive impact on creative skills of adolescents (Davis & Boellstorff, 2016; Ren, Zhu, & Yang, 2022).
Furthermore, social divides remain deep and the digital divide is worsening with regards to access to broadband and computers in China (OECD, 2024). Digital devices are ubiquitous among Chinese adolescents (China Child Development Report, 2023), creating new forms of digital practices and offering possibilities of access to learning and to education itself (Shi, 2020). While existing studies have explored the role of cultural capital in the relationship between SES and academic outcomes (Wang & Zhang, 2019; Ding & Wu, 2003), few researchers have paid attention to how it mediates the link between SES and creativity within the digital era, limiting understanding of how advantages of parental capitals translate into adolescents’ creativity in the digital era.
Thus, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s (1986) cultural capital framework, this study examined whether family socioeconomic status influences adolescents’ creativity through the mediating role of objectified cultural capital and digital devices, and sought to theoretically extend the understanding of the impact of objectified cultural capital on adolescents’ creativity development to the digital era by employing a structural equation model.

Method: This study drew on the 2023 OECD Social and Emotional Skills Survey and retained 3,261 students (ages 15-16) from China after removing cases with missing data or test times below 15 or above 300 minutes.
Family socioeconomic status (SES) was measured through PISA’s ESCS approach, combining parental education/occupation and household possessions into a continuous variable (mean=0, SD=1).
Creativity was assessed through self-reported student questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale based on the Big Five personality theory. For comparability, GPCM was used for parameter estimation. Initial ability scores (WLE algorithm) were linearly transformed into standardized scores (mean=500, SD=100).
Objectified cultural capital was measured by the number of home artworks, musical instruments, and books, composite score was the average of 3 items.
Digital devices included: (1) tablet; (2) laptop computers or notebooks; (3) cell phones; (4) E-book reader; (5) television. Scored 0 (none) to 1 (having), composite score was the average of 5 items.
For the data analysis, based on correlations of the variables, mediation analysis, a regression-based approach, was constructed to examine the serial mediation models. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics and macro-program PROCESS (Hayes, 2018), with gender and age included as control variables.

Result: The regression results for the total sample (N = 3,261) indicated that: (1) family SES positively predicted objectified cultural capital (β = 2.605, SE = 0.068, t = 38.046, p < 0.001); (2) objectified cultural capital positively predicted digital devices (β = 0.022, SE = 0.006, t = 3.629, p < 0.001); (3) digital devices positively predicted adolescent creativity (β = 7.411, SE = 0.782, t = 3.257, p < 0.001). Then objectified cultural capital and digital devices were added in, still, family SES had a significant predictive effect on adolescent creativity (β = 10.736, SE = 3.757, t = 2.857, p < 0.01).
Next, we examined the direct and indirect effects of family SES on adolescent creativity. The results indicated that: (1) the direct effect of family SES on adolescent creativity was significant (coefficient = 10.736, 95% CI = [3.369, 18.104]); (2) the indirect effect of Family SES → Objectified cultural capital → Creativity was significant (coefficient = 26.748, 95% CI = [21.972, 31.536]); (3) the indirect effect of Family SES → Digital devices → Creativity was significant (coefficient = 3.339, 95% CI = [1.159, 5.565]); (4) the serial mediation effect of Family SES → Objectified cultural capital → Digital devices → Creativity was also significant (coefficient = 0.430, 95% CI = [0.107, 0.849]).

Discussion: The results indicated that family SES not only directly predicted adolescents’ creativity but also influenced it through three indirect pathways: (1) the independent mediating role of objectified cultural capital; (2) the independent mediating role of digital devices; (3) the serial mediating pathway of objectified cultural capital → digital devices. The findings suggest that:
(1) Family socioeconomic advantages continue to be transmitted to adolescents’ creativity through the accumulation of objective cultural capital in the digital era, which is consistent with previous studies (Lu, Ding, & Nie, 2024; Kupczyszyn, Vanessa, & Oros, 2024).
(2) While objective cultural capital showed a stronger mediating effect, the influence conveyed through digital devices was still significant. This finding is consistent with previous study (Ren et al., 2022), which shows that the digital divide among Chinese adolescents nevertheless worsens existing inequalities in creativity development.
(3) Digital devices, when supported by objectified cultural capital, could be more effectively converted into resources conducive to adolescents’ creative development. This finding not only underscores the close relationship between digital devices and objectified cultural capital but also highlights the distinct functions of these two variables within the serial mediation model (Gomez, 2020).

Authors

• Zhenfei Peng, Faculty of Education

• JIA LI, East China Normal University