The Perception of Educational Barriers, Their Sociodemographic Correlates, and Their Relationship with Future Orientation in Italian Adolescents

Abstract

Adolescents often perceive various educational barriers that may hinder their academic engagement and future planning. These barriers, whether internal (e.g., low self-efficacy) or external (e.g., socioeconomic constraints), are shaped by both individual and contextual factors. This study aimed to examine the relationship between perceived educational barriers and future orientation among Italian high school students, with a focus on gender and sociodemographic predictors. A total of 479 students (aged 14–18) from six high schools in northern Italy completed validated measures assessing internal and external educational barriers, future orientation, and sociodemographic variables. Analyses included t-tests, Pearson’s correlations, and hierarchical multiple regression. Girls reported significantly higher internal barriers than boys, while no gender differences emerged in external barriers or future orientation. However, being female, having lower parental education, lower perceived social status, and lower future orientation were all significantly associated with higher overall perceived barriers. Regression analysis confirmed that gender, parental education, and perceived social status predicted perceived barriers, with future orientation adding independent explanatory power. These findings highlight the need for educational interventions that address both structural inequalities and internal psychological barriers. Enhancing future orientation and academic self-efficacy may help reduce perceived barriers, particularly among girls and socioeconomically disadvantaged students.

1. Introduction

Adolescence is a pivotal developmental stage in which individuals begin to formulate long-term goals and envision their future selves, a process that is closely linked to their capacity for future orientation (Bozzato, 2025; Nurmi, 2005; Seginer, 2009). Within developmental and educational psychology, future orientation is considered a key motivational construct, influencing adolescents’ educational engagement, decision-making, and resilience in the face of challenges (Johnson et al., 2014; Pimentel, 1996; Schoon & Parsons, 2002).

At the same time, adolescents must contend with various perceived educational barriers—both internal (e.g., low self-efficacy, lack of motivation) and external (e.g., socioeconomic constraints, school climate, lack of institutional or social support) (McWhirter, 1997; Creed et al., 2004; Broer et al., 2019). These perceptions can undermine academic engagement, increase school-related stress, and contribute to feelings of inadequacy or alienation, ultimately reducing students’ persistence and performance within the educational system (Ali et al., 2005; Ginevra et al., 2016; Watts et al., 2015).

In this context, a variable of particular interest is future orientation, which reflects an adolescent’s capacity to think ahead, set goals, and anticipate future outcomes (Nurmi, 1991; Seginer, 2009; Crespo et al., 2013). As a motivational and cognitive construct, future orientation may influence how young people perceive and interpret educational barriers. Alongside sociodemographic factors such as gender, parental education, and perceived social status (Ginevra et al., 2016; W. Wang et al., 2020; Irvin et al., 2012), it may help explain individual differences in how barriers are experienced and internalized. Investigating these associations can provide valuable insights into the mechanisms that support or hinder adolescents’ educational pathways.

The present study investigates the perception of educational barriers in a sample of 479 Italian high school students, exploring their sociodemographic correlates and their relationship with adolescents’ future orientation. Specifically, the study examines gender differences, assesses correlations between perceived barriers and sociodemographic variables, and tests whether future orientation predicts the perception of educational barriers beyond these background factors.

1.1. Adolescence and Educational Barriers

Adolescence is a critical developmental stage marked by rapid physical, emotional, and cognitive growth, transitioning individuals from childhood to adulthood (Benda et al., 2024; El Mallah et al., 2024; Erikson, 1968). This period is characterized not only by identity formation and social exploration but also by processes that shape future educational and professional outcomes (Crockett et al., 2023). High school, in particular, represents a fundamental phase where adolescents solidify their academic paths and career aspirations. During this time, they may face a variety of educational barriers that can affect their development.

Barriers refer to the presence or perception of conditions that hinder the achievement of goals related to future educational and professional development (Swanson & D’Achiardi, 2005). The emphasis on perception highlights the subjective nature of these barriers, suggesting that they may influence adolescents’ developmental trajectories even when no objective limitation is present (McWhirter, 1997). For example, a young person might internalize gender stereotypes prevalent in certain academic domains—such as STEM fields for girls or caregiving professions for boys—and consequently feel excluded from those educational or career paths. This dynamic is particularly relevant in Italy, where the gender gap in STEM orientation remains a timely concern, as highlighted by recent research conducted on young adults (Deloitte, 2024).

This perceived exclusion may lead them to devalue their original aspirations, reduce their investment in schoolwork, or opt for alternative pathways perceived as more accessible or socially acceptable. Over time, such perceptions can restrict academic motivation, reduce persistence, and ultimately narrow future opportunities, not because of actual inability but due to a sense of anticipated failure or social nonacceptance. Thus, perceived barriers can play a powerful role in shaping academic self-concept and long-term goal setting (Ginevra et al., 2016; Kenny et al., 2003), particularly during adolescence—a period marked by heightened sensitivity to social evaluations and identity formation (Erikson, 1968).

Researchers commonly distinguish between external educational barriers—those arising from the social environment, such as gender prejudice, discrimination, inadequate training opportunities, and lack of support—and internal barriers, which refer to individual characteristics such as low self-esteem, lack of self-confidence, discouragement from pursuing nontraditional roles based on gender norms, or challenges related to disability or sexual orientation (Creed et al., 2004; McWhirter et al., 2007). Among external barriers, socioeconomic status (SES) plays a particularly influential role. Research has consistently shown that SES significantly affects adolescents’ educational and occupational opportunities and achievements (Broer et al., 2019; Destin & Oyserman, 2009; Lent & Brown, 2013). Adolescents from lower SES backgrounds often perceive fewer opportunities available to them, which can constrain their goals and career aspirations. They are also more likely to experience lower-quality education, a lack of career role models, and limited access to financial resources (Psaki et al., 2022)—all factors that contribute to the anticipation of greater educational and vocational barriers (Ali et al., 2005).

International studies investigating the relationship between adolescents’ gender and their perception of educational and career barriers have yielded mixed results. McWhirter (1997), in a study involving 1139 American high school students, found that female participants anticipated more barriers than their male peers. However, no significant gender differences emerged regarding practical obstacles—such as financial difficulties, family issues, academic ability, or already having a job—as reasons for not pursuing college education. Notably, girls were more likely than boys to report that, if they chose not to attend college, it would be due to a lack of interest or belief in its relevance to their future. A later study by McWhirter et al. (2007) confirmed that girls anticipated more challenges related to financing postsecondary education, while both genders were equally likely to expect barriers related to gender discrimination, pregnancy, or marriage.

Despite evolving gender roles, both quantitative and qualitative evidence from the past decades continue to show that female students report more perceived obstacles to their educational and professional development—particularly internal barriers associated with the internalization of traditional gender stereotypes (Cardoso & Marques, 2008; Poni & Kallçiu, 2023; Watts et al., 2015). In the Italian context, Ginevra et al. (2016) observed significant gender differences in the perception of personal vulnerability and inadequacy: Girls were more likely than boys to believe that such feelings might hinder their pursuit of postsecondary education. Conversely, no gender differences emerged in the perception of external barriers. This suggests that girls and boys differ primarily in how they interpret their internal emotional states in relation to future education. Specifically, girls are more inclined to believe that self-doubt, insecurity, or perceived inadequacy could prevent them from continuing their studies, whereas boys are less likely to view such feelings as impediments to their educational aspirations.

In addition to gender, age and school grade level also appear to influence perceptions of educational barriers. Irvin et al. (2012) found that older students, or those in higher secondary grades, reported fewer perceived barriers than younger students, possibly due to increased awareness, experience, or self-efficacy in managing obstacles.

Furthermore, several studies have highlighted the impact of parental educational attainment on adolescents’ academic development and aspirations (Behnke et al., 2004; Ojeda & Flores, 2008; Xu & Fu, 2024). Parents with higher education levels tend to be better equipped to support their children’s academic journey, offering access to more and better-quality educational opportunities (W. Wang et al., 2020). This raises a relevant question for educational research: To what extent do adolescents’ perceptions of educational barriers reflect the educational background of their parents?

Various theoretical frameworks have sought to clarify how and when perceived barriers impact educational and career decision-making processes, especially during childhood and adolescence—developmental periods marked by identity formation and increasing environmental demands. Among the most influential is Gottfredson’s (1981, 2002) Theory of Circumscription and Compromise, which provides a developmental and sociocognitive lens for viewing how career aspirations are progressively shaped and, in many cases, restricted by both internal self-perceptions and external contextual constraints.

According to Gottfredson, career development begins early in life and unfolds through two major processes: circumscription and compromise. During the circumscription phase (approximately ages 3 to 13), children begin to eliminate career options that they perceive as incongruent with their emerging self-concept. This self-concept is constructed through interactions with the social environment and is heavily influenced by salient dimensions such as gender stereotypes, social class expectations, and perceived social value of occupations. As children internalize societal norms—especially those related to gender—they may prematurely exclude certain occupational paths, not due to lack of interest or ability, but because they perceive them as socially inappropriate or unattainable.

The subsequent phase, compromise, typically emerges during adolescence, when young people begin to reconcile their aspirations with the realities of their social and economic context. At this stage, individuals may scale back their goals or settle for less-preferred options due to external barriers, such as limited financial resources, restricted educational opportunities, or lack of familial or community support. In essence, compromise involves adjusting one’s career preferences not because of a shift in interests or competencies but as a response to perceived feasibility.

Gottfredson’s model thus illustrates how the interplay between self-concept and structural limitations can lead to the early narrowing of perceived career options, often long before actual choices need to be made. This perspective has critical implications for equity in education and career development: If barriers are internalized early and left unchallenged, they may limit the perceived horizon of opportunity for marginalized youth, contributing to the reproduction of social inequalities. More recent adaptations of the model also emphasize the role of intersectionality and cultural variation, acknowledging that the processes of circumscription and compromise may unfold differently across diverse sociocultural contexts and varying perceptions of gender identity (Leong & Gupta, 2008; Wada et al., 2019).

Drawing from Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory, Lent et al. (2002) proposed the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), which specifically addresses career decision-making processes. This theory focuses on the relationship between self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goals. According to SCCT, self-efficacy represents individuals’ beliefs in their capability to perform specific tasks, while outcome expectations involve anticipated consequences of task performance. Goals are the desired outcomes that guide behavior and motivation, and their formation is made possible by the cognitive ability referred to as future orientation.

A distinguishing feature of SCCT is the centrality of self-efficacy in shaping career development, setting it apart from other theoretical models. Learning experiences—classified as positive, neutral, or negative—play a crucial role in shaping self-efficacy and outcome expectations, and are themselves influenced by personal characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) and contextual factors (e.g., socioeconomic status, parental education). These core beliefs subsequently influence vocational interests, goal setting, intentions, and behaviors. Moreover, the dynamic interaction among self-efficacy, outcome expectations, background factors, and learning experiences contributes to career decision-making processes. Lent et al. (2002) illustrate these interrelations through a path model that maps the theoretical structure of SCCT.

According to this theory, various contextual elements, such as perceived barriers, can also influence a person’s career interests and the pursuit of specific educational or professional trajectories (Lent & Brown, 2013). Educational and professional barriers may exert their influence at both distal and proximal levels (Lent et al., 2000). Distal factors, such as socioeconomic status or the presence of role models, may hinder the development of self-efficacy and outcome expectations by limiting access to enriching learning experiences (Lent & Brown, 2013). In contrast, proximal influences—such as the attitudes of significant others or the immediate demands of the educational or occupational environment—can function as barriers when they impede the translation of interests into goals and goals into actions. Barriers encountered along the way may significantly shape decision-making processes by undermining individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs within specific educational or career domains.

The Contextual and Cultural Model of Coping (Heppner et al., 2014) offers a nuanced understanding of how individuals navigate stressors within complex sociocultural environments. Central to the model is the recognition that coping is not merely an intrapersonal process but is deeply embedded in broader contextual and cultural systems. The model emphasizes that individuals’ perceptions of adverse contextual factors such as economic hardship, institutional discrimination, rigid gender and professional stereotypes, and a lack of access to supportive resources can significantly undermine both mental and physical health outcomes. These external stressors interact with personal vulnerabilities, including low self-esteem, limited social skills, and underdeveloped coping strategies, thereby compounding individuals’ susceptibility to psychological distress and reduced well-being.

Importantly, the model highlights the mediating role of coping and problem-solving skills in shaping individuals’ responses to these challenges. These skills function as dynamic mechanisms that bridge the gap between environmental demands and personal interpretations of those demands. Individuals with more adaptive coping repertoires such as active problem-solving, cognitive reappraisal, and seeking social support are better equipped to manage contextual pressures and to maintain a more positive sense of self and future orientation. Conversely, maladaptive coping responses such as avoidance, denial, or self-blame can exacerbate the negative impact of contextual and internal stressors, leading to poorer health outcomes and a diminished perception of available life, and educational, or career opportunities.

In this framework, coping is conceptualized as a culturally informed process: Individuals’ beliefs, values, and socialization experiences shape how they appraise stressors and select coping strategies. Thus, health and well-being are not merely outcomes of personal resilience but also reflect the availability of culturally congruent resources and the individual’s perceived capacity to engage with or modify their environment. Overall, the Contextual and Cultural Model of Coping provides a comprehensive lens through which to understand how sociocultural adversity and personal agency interact in shaping psychological adjustment, particularly in populations exposed to chronic stress or structural disadvantage.

Based on the discussed theoretical models, it is clear that educational barriers can influence educational plans by gradually narrowing the range of educational choices considered by individuals, particularly when these challenges are not effectively addressed.

1.2. Future Orientation in Adolescence

In the field of developmental psychology, various scholars use the term “future orientation” to denote how individuals perceive their future and imagine hypothetical scenarios for their education and career. This concept specifically addresses an individual’s deliberate representation of future events, which includes their thoughts, aspirations, plans, motivations, and emotions (Nurmi, 2005; Seginer, 2009).

Since Lewin’s (1939) early work, future orientation in adolescence has garnered extensive interest across various theoretical and methodological traditions. This interest is understandable, as adolescence is widely regarded—both individually and culturally—as a critical period during which future-related choices gain increasing salience. Drawing from Eriksonian theory, Nurmi (2005) emphasized that adolescence marks the developmental stage when individuals begin to consolidate their identity as a foundation for constructing their future and preparing for adulthood. This process becomes manifest through decisions such as the selection of educational paths and potential career trajectories.

The role of cognitive abilities in explaining adolescents’ future orientation has long been debated. Piagetian theory suggests that adolescents are increasingly capable of abstract thought, enabling them to formulate future-oriented hypotheses (Kuhn, 2008). However, empirical research has revealed a surprising lack of correlation between future orientation and formal operational reasoning or standardized measures of intelligence (Nurmi, 1989; McCabe & Barnett, 2000). Studies have also shown that children as young as 9 years can plan for the near future, and long-term future planning peaks at around age 11 (Kreitler & Kreitler, 1987), indicating that formal operations are not a prerequisite for future-oriented thinking.

In a seminal longitudinal study, Nurmi (1989) investigated future thinking in 10–11-year-olds and 14–15-year-olds in Finland. The most frequently mentioned domains were education and work, followed by family and material possessions. Aspirations related to education increased with age, especially among boys. While gender and SES had limited effects, adolescents from lower SES backgrounds expressed more family-related hopes, whereas those from higher SES backgrounds believed more strongly in the likelihood of achieving their goals. Interestingly, younger participants projected their goals further into the future than older ones, although both groups anticipated fulfilling their aspirations around the age of 20. Over a four-year follow-up, Nurmi found substantial individual consistency in goal content. Boys became more optimistic over time, whereas girls showed an increasing tendency toward pessimism.

Future orientation has also been shown to play a role in how individuals make life decisions. For instance, aspirations at age 16 have been found to predict early adult occupational goals (Schoon & Parsons, 2002), and academic goals have been associated with university enrollment (Pimentel, 1996). Lower educational and occupational aspirations have also been linked to higher rates of adolescent pregnancy (Hockaday et al., 2000), suggesting that a limited future outlook may be associated with risky behaviors.

Although considered an innate human capacity, future orientation develops within sociocultural, economic, and institutional contexts (Seginer, 2009). Life course expectations, thematic concerns, and planning strategies are largely acquired through social interactions with parents, peers, and educational institutions. As Nurmi (1991) suggested, future orientation is shaped by cultural prototypes of age-graded developmental tasks.

Across cultures, adolescents tend to expect to achieve educational goals by age 19, occupational goals by 23, and family goals by 29 (Nurmi, 2005), reflecting dominant cultural timelines. While adolescents across diverse societies tend to mention similar future domains (e.g., education, family), some cultural differences exist: Adolescents in Western societies often emphasize personal happiness and leisure, whereas those in more traditional cultures focus on parental family, marriage, and health (Nurmi, 1991).

The perceived availability of educational and career opportunities also influences future orientation. For example, rural adolescents tend to display a sharper decline in future orientation over time than their urban peers, likely due to perceived structural barriers (Nurmi et al., 1994).

According to Nurmi (1991), adolescents’ fears and concerns about the future generally cluster around three domains: (1) normative developmental challenges (e.g., school failure, job insecurity, and romantic breakups); (2) concerns about family members’ health and stability; and (3) socio-political threats, which tend to shift over time and are often shaped by media discourse (e.g., war, climate change, pandemics). Recent studies have documented adolescents’ growing concern about global issues such as armed conflict, climate change, and the post-COVID-19 world (Bozzato, 2024). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, adolescents were generally optimistic about their futures and believed in their personal agency (Brown & Larson, 2002; Nurmi, 1989). They often used defensive optimism, underestimating the likelihood of experiencing adverse events compared to peers (e.g., divorce, unemployment, or alcoholism) (Blinn & Pike, 1989; Malmberg & Norrgård, 1999). However, recent post-pandemic findings suggest a noticeable shift toward a more pessimistic view of the future (Bozzato, 2024).

Nurmi also theorized that adolescents’ self-perceptions significantly shape their future orientation. He emphasized the role of “internal beliefs about one’s influence on the future” (Nurmi, 1991, p. 52). Parents, however, play a pivotal role by setting normative expectations, modeling future-related behaviors, and shaping adolescents’ educational efficacy and life goals (Nurmi, 1991). Peers likewise influence future thinking by reinforcing age-graded norms, providing comparison opportunities, and exerting social pressure toward conformity. Empirical studies support these hypotheses. For example, Wilks (1985) found that adolescents rely on parents for long-term, complex decision-making, whereas friends are consulted for short-term, less significant matters. Adolescents often share values and aspirations closely that are closely aligned with their parents (Coopersmith et al., 1975; Nurmi, 1991).

Seginer (2009) further demonstrated that parenting style indirectly shapes adolescents’ future orientation by influencing their self-esteem and self-image. Supportive parenting fosters a more positive and proactive outlook, while specific parental expectations may directly shape adolescents’ life directions. In addition to parents, siblings and peers also shape adolescents’ future perspectives, albeit more indirectly, by influencing how adolescents perceive themselves. Finally, adolescents are more likely to develop adaptive future orientations when they feel integrated within their family context. A strong sense of belonging and supportive relationships in the family environment promote exploration of life options and sustained engagement with future-oriented goals (Crespo et al., 2013).

The relationship between future orientation and perceived barriers is particularly salient, as adolescents with a well-developed future orientation tend to exhibit stronger goal-setting behavior, greater persistence in the face of challenges, and a more proactive attitude toward overcoming obstacles (Johnson et al., 2014). Conversely, a low level of future orientation may lead individuals to perceive more educational barriers, reducing their motivation to invest in long-term educational or career goals.

1.3. The Current Study

Today, few studies have examined the relationship between future orientation and the perception of educational and career barriers. In one example, a study of 174 high school students found that perceived barriers were linked to school engagement, as well as to students’ aspirations for career achievement, expectations of reaching career goals, and the value they assign to work in their future lives (Kenny et al., 2003). Ali and McWhirter (2006) reported that rural Appalachian youth living in high-poverty areas had their educational expectations shaped by the barriers they perceived in pursuing education. In contrast, Wettersten et al. (2005) found that for rural youth in the US Midwest, perceived educational barriers did not significantly predict academic expectations. These mixed findings suggest that while perceived educational barriers may influence future orientation, their impact may vary across different adolescent populations.

Notably, while these studies provide evidence that perceived barriers can influence future academic and career-related attitudes, they do not examine whether adolescents’ future orientation itself might shape how they perceive such barriers. This gap is important, as future orientation—a motivational and cognitive construct—may play a key role in modulating how challenges are appraised and internalized.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no recent studies have investigated how Italian adolescents perceive educational barriers, how these perceptions relate to sociodemographic variables, and how they interact with adolescents’ future orientation. This gap is also noteworthy, given the central role of adolescence in shaping long-term educational and career trajectories, as well as the growing body of research showing that both perceived barriers and future orientation are critical in influencing goal setting, persistence, and academic engagement (Nurmi, 2005; Kenny et al., 2003; Seginer, 2009).

Prior studies have shown that perceived barriers—whether internal (e.g., self-doubt, low self-confidence) or external (e.g., socioeconomic disadvantage, gender stereotypes)—can significantly constrain adolescents’ educational aspirations and motivation to pursue long-term goals (McWhirter, 1997; Creed et al., 2004). Conversely, a well-developed future orientation is associated with greater resilience, goal-directed behavior, and the capacity to overcome obstacles (Johnson et al., 2014). However, the interplay between these two constructs remains underexplored in the Italian context, especially in relation to sociodemographic variables such as gender, grade level, parental education, and perceived social status.

Building on these theoretical and empirical foundations, we formulated three research questions and corresponding hypotheses:

RQ1: 

Do perceived educational barriers (internal, external, or overall) and future orientation differ by gender among adolescent students?

H1: 

Consistent with prior findings (McWhirter et al., 2007; Ginevra et al., 2016), we hypothesize that girls will report higher levels of internal barriers than boys, reflecting greater vulnerability to internalized gender norms and lower academic self-confidence. However, we expect no significant gender differences in perceived external or overall barriers. Similarly, no gender differences are anticipated in future orientation, given the inconclusive findings in the literature on gender differences in temporal perspective (Nurmi, 1991; Schoon & Parsons, 2002).

RQ2: 

What is the relationship between perceived educational barriers (internal, external, or overall), future orientation, and demographic factors (gender, grade level, parental education, and perceived socioeconomic status) among adolescent students?

H2: 

Drawing on Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 2002) and existing studies on adolescents’ perceived barriers (Irvin et al., 2012; W. Wang et al., 2020), we hypothesize that female students in lower grade levels, with lower perceived socioeconomic status, lower parental education, and lower future orientation, will report higher levels of perceived educational barriers. Conversely, male students in higher grades, with greater future orientation, higher perceived socioeconomic status, and more educated parents, are expected to perceive fewer barriers, as they may benefit from enhanced resources, stronger self-efficacy, and more favorable contextual conditions.

RQ3: 

To what extent do gender, parental education, perceived social status, and future orientation predict adolescents’ perceived educational barriers?

H3: 

Based on theoretical frameworks emphasizing the mediating role of cognitive appraisals and contextual affordances (Lent & Brown, 2013; Heppner et al., 2014), we hypothesize that both individual factors (gender, future orientation) and sociodemographic factors (parental education, perceived social status) will significantly predict perceived educational barriers. Specifically, we expect that lower parental education, lower perceived socioeconomic status, and a less developed future orientation will be associated with higher perceptions of both internal and external educational barriers.

These research questions and hypotheses are informed by prominent developmental and motivational theories, including Erikson’s psychosocial theory of identity formation, Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription and compromise, and Lent’s Social Cognitive Career Theory. By investigating these dynamics in a sample of Italian adolescents, the present study aims to offer novel insights into how perceived barriers and future orientation interact in shaping educational planning, and how sociodemographic factors contribute to this process. These findings can inform school-based interventions aimed at enhancing students’ academic engagement, particularly for those most vulnerable to educational disadvantage.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample

A convenience sample was used in the current study. All schools contacted by the researchers agreed to participate. The inclusion criteria were: (a) residing in Italy, (b) having sufficient knowledge of Italian, and (c) voluntary participation. The exclusion criteria were: (a) being an exchange student (i.e., not residing in Italy), (b) failure to provide informed consent signed by both parents or guardians, and (c) incomplete responses to the online survey.

Of the 586 students initially recruited, 479 (81.7%) met the inclusion criteria, submitted informed consent signed by both parents or guardians, and completed the survey. The final sample consisted of 229 males (47.8%) and 238 females (49.7%). Additionally, 12 students identified as genderless, agender, or chose not to disclose their gender identity. Participants ranged in age from 14 to 18 years (M = 16.17, SD = 1.11) and were recruited from six types of high schools in Lombardy and Piedmont (northern Italy): Art High School (n = 109, 22.8%), Applied Sciences High School (n = 80, 16.7%), Human Sciences High School (n = 80, 16.7%), Scientific High School (n = 78, 16.3%), Linguistic High School (n = 66, 13.8%), and Vocational School (n = 66, 13.8%).

2.2. Procedure and Ethics

A structured online questionnaire was administered for this study. Participants completed the survey at school using computers, under the supervision of both a teacher and a research assistant. Prior to participation, informed consent was obtained from both the students and their parents or legal guardians. Participation was voluntary, and consent included agreement for the data to be aggregated, anonymized, and used in scientific publications. No compensation was provided. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Italian Psychological Association and the regulations of the participating universities.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Sociodemographic Measures

Participants provided demographic information, including age, gender, school type, grade level, perceived socioeconomic status, and parental educational attainment. Perceived socioeconomic status was measured using the MacArthur Subjective Social Status Scale—Youth Version (Goodman et al., 2001). This scale asks adolescents to indicate their family’s relative social standing on a 10-rung “social ladder,” where the top rung (10) represents families with the highest levels of education, income, and occupational prestige, while the bottom rung (1) represents families with the lowest. This measure captures participants’ subjective perception of their family’s socioeconomic position.

Parental educational levels were categorized as follows: 0 = no education or some primary school, 1 = primary school certificate, 2 = middle school diploma, 3 = some years of high school, 4 = high school diploma, 5 = university degree, and 6 = doctoral or postgraduate degree.

2.3.2. The Perceptional Educational Barriers Scale (PEB)

The Italian version of the Perception of Educational Barriers Scale (Ginevra et al., 2016) was used to assess adolescents’ perceptions of external and internal barriers that could hinder their pursuit of further education and professional development. Originally developed by McWhirter et al. (2000), the questionnaire is widely used and recognized in international literature for its strong psychometric properties and concise format (McWhirter et al., 2000, 2007).

Ginevra et al. (2016) validated the Italian adaptation, reporting adequate reliability and validity. Exploratory factor analysis with oblimin rotation identified two correlated factors—external barriers and internal barriers—with satisfactory model fit. The scale includes 23 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (Not at all likely) to 4 (Very likely). Sample items include “If I didn’t continue my education, it would be because of money problems” (external) and “If I didn’t continue my education, it would be because of lack of motivation” (internal). Higher scores reflect a greater expectation of encountering educational barriers. In the present study, the scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.86).

2.3.3. The Future Orientation Scale from the Isfol AVO Youth Questionnaire

Future orientation was assessed using the Future Orientation Scale from the Isfol AVO Youth Questionnaire, which has been validated for use with Italian adolescents. Grimaldi et al. (2015) reported satisfactory psychometric properties for the scale in terms of both validity and reliability. The scale comprises seven items rated on a six-point Likert scale (1 = Completely false to 6 = Completely true), with higher mean scores indicating a stronger future orientation. Total scores are calculated by summing item responses. Sample items include “I have plans for the future” and “I am preparing for the future by seeking to enhance my skills.” In the present study, the internal consistency of the scale was acceptable (Cronbach’s α = 0.79).

2.4. Statistical Analysis Plan

Descriptive statistics were first calculated for all study variables. Next, independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine gender differences. Normality was assessed using skewness and kurtosis indices. To account for multiple comparisons, a Bonferroni-adjusted significance threshold of p = 0.007 (0.05/7) was applied. Effect sizes for group differences were evaluated using Cohen’s d. Pearson’s correlation analyses were then conducted to explore associations among the variables after verifying that the assumptions of normality, independence of observations, homoscedasticity, and absence of influential outliers were met. Finally, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of perceived educational barriers after verifying that the assumptions of linearity, homoscedasticity, independence of errors, multicollinearity, and outliers were met. No major violations were detected, and the few extreme cases identified did not unduly influence the results. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0.

3. Results

3.1. Participants’ Sociodemographic Characteristics

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants.

Variable	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	229	47.8%
Female	238	49.7%
Other Gender/Genderless/Agender	12	2.5%
Grade Level
9th	143	29.9%
10th	165	34.4%
11th	96	20.0%
12th	75	15.7%
Father’s Educational Level
No education/Some Years of Primary School	3	0.6%
Primary School Certificate	12	2.5%
Middle School Diploma	78	16.3%
Some Years of High School	75	15.7%
High School Diploma	167	34.9%
University/College Degree	102	21.3%
Doctoral/Postgraduate Degree	42	8.8%
Mother’s Educational Level
No Education/Some Years of Primary School	4	0.8%
Primary School Certificate	10	2.1%
Middle School Diploma	76	15.9%
Some Years of High School	80	16.7%
High School Diploma	178	37.2%
University/College Degree	100	20.9%
Doctoral/Postgraduate Degree	31	6.5%
Perceived Socioeconomic Status
Very Low (1–2)	10	2.1%
Low (3–4)	41	8.6%
Moderate (5–6)	151	31.5%
High (7–6)	253	52.8%
Very High (9–10)	24	5.0%

presents the participants’ sociodemographic characteristics, including gender, grade level, mother’s and father’s education levels, and perceived social status.

3.2. Gender Differences in the Perception of Educational Barriers and Future Orientation

Table 2. Gender differences in the perception of educational barriers and future orientation.

Study Variable	Males			Females			t (df)	p	d
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
Perception of Educational Barriers
External	229	28.84	6.27	238	28.52	6.04	0.56 (465)	0.572
Internal	229	20.35	5.18	238	22.63	5.50	−4.65 (465)	<0.001	0.43
Overall	229	49.19	10.32	238	51.15	10.00	−2.08 (465)	0.038
Future Orientation	229	27.69	4.55	238	26.97	5.42	1.54 (456.93)	0.123

Note. n = sample size; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; df = degrees of freedom; p = p-value; d = Cohen’s d. A Bonferroni-corrected p-value of 0.007 (0.05/7) was used to control multiple comparisons.

presents gender differences in the perception of educational barriers and future orientation. Adolescent females reported encountering a greater number of internal educational barriers (M = 22.63; SD = 5.40) compared to their male counterparts (M = 20.35; SD = 5.18). This difference was statistically significant with a medium effect size, slightly below the midpoint of the medium range (t₄₆₅ = −4.65; p = < 0.001; d = 0.43). However, there were no significant differences between males and females in their perceptions of overall educational barriers, external educational barriers, or future orientation.

3.3. Correlational Analysis

Table 3. Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlation matrix of the variables under study.

	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Overall Barriers	50.42 (10.57)	-
2. External Barriers	28.79 (6.37)	0.90 **	-
3. Internal Barriers	21.62 (5.52)	0.86 **	−0.55 **	-
4. Future Orientation	27.26 (5.04)	−0.50 **	−0.35 **	−0.55 **	-
5. Gender	-	0.10 *	−0.03	0.21 **	−0.07	-
6. Grade Level	2.22 (1.04)	−0.02	−0.05	0.03	0.16 **	0.14 **	-
7. Father’s Education	3.81 (1.29)	−0.30 **	−0.30 **	−0.22 **	0.13 **	0.06	−0.09 *	-
8. Mother’s Education	3.76 (1.23)	−0.32 **	−0.34 **	−0.22 **	0.15 **	0	−0.62	0.54 **	-
9. Perceived Socioeconomic Status	6.50 (1.55)	−0.27 **	−0.36 **	−10 *	0.16 **	0.90	−0.07	0.30 **	0.35 **	-

Note. n = 467; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Overall Barriers = perception of overall educational barriers; External Barriers = perception of external educational barriers; Internal Barriers = perceptions of internal educational barriers; Gender: 0 = male; 1 = female; * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.001.

reports the results of the correlational analysis, revealing statistically significant, moderate, and negative correlations between future orientation and perceptions of overall, external, and internal educational barriers. All three types of perceived barriers were also negatively and significantly correlated with both parents’ educational levels and adolescents’ perceived social status.

Gender (coded as 0 = male; 1 = female) showed significant correlations with internal and overall barriers, but not with external barriers. Conversely, grade level was not significantly associated with any type of perceived barrier and was therefore excluded from subsequent analyses.

3.4. Regression Analysis

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to address the third research question and test the corresponding hypothesis. In the first step, sociodemographic variables were included as predictors. In the second step, the variable future orientation was added to the model.

As shown in

Table 4. Regression results predicting perceived overall educational barriers.

Variable		Step 1				Step 2
	B	β	SE B	R2	ΔR2	B	β	SE	R2	ΔR2
Constant	66.67 ***		2.13	0.16	0.16 ***	89.94 ***		2.61	0.34	0.18 ***
Gender	2.44 **	−0.12 **	0.87			1.68 *	0.08	0.78
Father’s Educational Level	−1.25 **	−0.16 **	0.41			−1.04 **	−0.13	0.36
Mother’s Educational Level	−1.48 **	−0.18 **	0.43			−1.21 **	−0.14	0.39
Perceived Socioeconomic Status	−1.14 **	−0.17 ***	0.31			−0.76 **	−0.11	0.28
Future Orientation						−0.88 ***	−0.44	0.08

Note. n = 467; Gender: 0 = male; 1 = female; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

, the results indicated that all sociodemographic variables (gender, father’s and mother’s education levels, and perceived social status) were significant predictors of overall perceived educational barriers. The model remained significant even after adding the variable future orientation. This suggests that future orientation independently predicts perceptions of overall educational barriers, even when controlling for sociodemographic factors.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to explore the perception of educational barriers and future orientation among Italian high school students, with particular attention to gender differences and sociodemographic predictors. Grounded in developmental psychology, the study examined how adolescents’ emotional and cognitive representations of their future—referred to as future orientation—may shape the way they perceive internal and external obstacles along their educational paths.

Future orientation is widely recognized as a core motivational construct during adolescence, associated with planning capacity, resilience, and long-term goal setting (Nurmi, 2005; Johnson et al., 2014; Seginer, 2009). At the same time, adolescents must navigate a range of perceived educational barriers, which may arise from both individual (e.g., low self-efficacy, self-doubt) and contextual factors (e.g., socioeconomic disadvantage, lack of support, and gender stereotypes) (McWhirter, 1997; Creed et al., 2004; Broer et al., 2019). These perceptions—whether or not they reflect objective constraints—can undermine academic motivation, reduce persistence, and narrow students’ envisioned futures (Ali et al., 2005; Ginevra et al., 2016).

4.1. Gender Differences in the Perception of Educational Barriers

The first research question investigated whether future orientation and perceived educational barriers—categorized as internal, external, and overall—as well as future orientation, differ by gender among Italian adolescents. The corresponding hypothesis (H1) proposed that girls would report higher levels of internal barriers than boys, in line with prior evidence indicating a greater tendency among adolescent females to internalize emotional and academic challenges. No significant gender differences were expected for external or overall barriers, nor for future orientation.

The findings supported this hypothesis. Specifically, adolescent females reported significantly higher levels of internal educational barriers compared to their male peers. This result aligns with previous studies conducted both in Italy and internationally (Ginevra et al., 2016; McWhirter et al., 2007), which show that girls are more likely to experience and report self-doubt, performance anxiety, and concerns about personal inadequacy in academic contexts. These internalized perceptions may be rooted in broader gendered socialization processes, in which girls are often subject to implicit expectations to excel, adhere to norms of diligence, and avoid failure—pressures that can heighten their vulnerability to internal educational stress (Eccles, 2009; Cardoso & Marques, 2008).

Importantly, the analysis revealed no significant gender differences in perceptions of external or overall educational barriers. This suggests that contextual and structural challenges such as financial difficulties, limited access to resources, or lack of institutional support are perceived similarly by boys and girls. However, the psychological interpretation of these challenges may differ: Girls may be more likely to internalize academic difficulties, attributing them to personal inadequacies rather than external conditions. This pattern may reflect early exposure to gender stereotypes that undermine girls’ perceived competence in certain domains (e.g., STEM), as well as societal narratives linking female success to perfectionism and overachievement (M.-T. Wang & Degol, 2017).

The absence of gender differences in future orientation also aligns with previous research (Nurmi, 1991; Schoon & Parsons, 2002), which suggests that male and female adolescents report comparable levels of goal-setting and future planning during secondary school. However, it is possible that while the quantity of future-oriented thinking is similar, the quality or emotional tone may differ—girls, for instance, may envision the future with greater anxiety or conditionality linked to self-worth, which could intensify perceptions of internal barriers.

In sum, these findings underscore the importance of addressing not only structural inequalities in educational environments but also the gendered psychological processes that shape adolescents’ interpretations of their academic potential and prospects.

4.2. The Relationship Between the Study Variables

The second research question (RQ2) examined the relationships among perceived educational barriers (internal, external, and overall), future orientation, and sociodemographic variables—specifically gender, grade level, parental education, and perceived social status. The associated hypothesis (H2) proposed that female students in lower grade levels with lower future orientation, lower perceived social status, and lower parental education would report higher levels of perceived educational barriers. In contrast, male students in higher grades with greater future orientation, higher perceived social status, and more highly educated parents were expected to perceive fewer barriers. This hypothesis was informed by Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 2000), which posits that individual and contextual factors such as self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and sociodemographic background interact to shape beliefs about educational and career-related obstacles.

The correlational findings partially supported H2. As anticipated, future orientation was negatively and significantly associated with all three dimensions of perceived educational barriers (internal, external, and overall). This aligns with prior research indicating that adolescents who are more goal-oriented and emotionally engaged with their futures tend to view educational challenges as manageable rather than insurmountable (Nurmi, 2005; Johnson et al., 2014). A future-oriented mindset is typically linked to greater self-efficacy, strategic planning, and persistence—factors that buffer against perceived limitations.

Additionally, and consistent with SCCT’s emphasis on contextual affordances (Lent & Brown, 2013), lower parental education and lower perceived social status were significantly associated with higher perceptions of educational barriers. These results echo findings showing that adolescents from less advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to encounter or anticipate financial, institutional, and academic support-related obstacles (Ali et al., 2005; W. Wang et al., 2020). Such conditions may also erode students’ sense of agency, further heightening their perception of barriers.

Gender was significantly correlated with internal and overall barriers, but not with external ones, refining the original hypothesis. Although female students did not differ from males in perceiving external constraints, they were more likely to report psychological and emotional challenges, such as low confidence and fear of failure. This supports prior research suggesting that girls are more prone to internalized academic stress, often shaped by gendered socialization and performance expectations (Ginevra et al., 2016; Eccles, 2009).

Interestingly, grade level was not significantly correlated with perceived barriers, contrary to previous studies suggesting that older adolescents perceive fewer obstacles due to greater maturity or coping resources (Irvin et al., 2012). This discrepancy may reflect sample-specific factors (e.g., the Italian school system or institutional structure) or suggest that perceptions of educational barriers remain relatively stable across upper secondary school years. The results reinforce the idea that socioeconomic and psychological variables, rather than age or grade level alone, are more powerful predictors of perceived barriers.

4.3. Predictors of Perception of Educational Barriers

The third research question (RQ3) examined whether gender, parental education, perceived social status, and future orientation significantly predict adolescents’ perceptions of educational barriers. The corresponding hypothesis (H3) anticipated that both sociodemographic variables and future orientation would serve as significant predictors, with lower parental education, lower perceived social status, and lower levels of future orientation being associated with higher perceived educational barriers. This hypothesis was grounded in SCCT (Lent et al., 2000) and supported by empirical evidence highlighting the combined effects of structural and motivational factors on adolescents’ academic and vocational development (Lent & Brown, 2013; W. Wang et al., 2020).

The hierarchical regression analysis provided clear support for this hypothesis. In the first step, gender, parents’ education levels, and perceived social status emerged as significant predictors of perceived educational barriers. Correlation and regression analyses showed that gender was significantly associated with the overall perception of educational barriers, despite the absence of significant gender differences in mean scores for overall or external barriers. This apparent inconsistency can be explained by the fact that the overall barrier score combines both internal and external dimensions, and gender was strongly associated with internal barriers. Therefore, although girls and boys reported similar overall levels of perceived barriers on average, girls’ higher internal barrier scores contributed to the predictive role of gender in the multivariate model. These findings underscore the value of considering both mean differences and multivariate relationships when interpreting the influence of sociodemographic factors on perceived educational barriers.

Specifically, being female, having parents with lower educational attainment, and perceiving oneself as belonging to a lower social class were all associated with greater perceived barriers. These findings are in line with prior research demonstrating that girls are more susceptible to internal barriers (Ginevra et al., 2016), and that adolescents from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to encounter or anticipate structural obstacles in their educational journey (Ali et al., 2005; Broer et al., 2019).

Notably, the second step of the regression model revealed that future orientation significantly predicted perceived educational barriers even after controlling for sociodemographic variables. This result underscores the unique and independent role of future-oriented cognition and emotion in adolescents’ interpretation of educational constraints. Students who expressed more negative emotions or uncertainty about their future educational path were more likely to perceive internal and external obstacles, suggesting that affective self-appraisal, and not only external context, critically shapes educational outlooks.

This is consistent with research from the field of educational psychology emphasizing the impact of affective and motivational variables on academic planning and decision-making. For instance, Pekrun et al. (2017) highlight the role of academic emotions such as hope, anxiety, or hopelessness in influencing students’ self-regulation, goal setting, and persistence. Similarly, Johnson et al. (2014) showed that adolescents with a positive, future-oriented mindset were more resilient when facing school-related stress and less likely to perceive obstacles as insurmountable.

Moreover, these findings support the Contextual and Cultural Model of Coping (Heppner et al., 2014), which postulates that individuals’ interpretations of external challenges are mediated by their personal coping resources and emotional frameworks. Adolescents with strong future orientation—characterized by agency, planning, and positive expectations—may be better equipped to cognitively reframe educational difficulties as temporary or solvable, thereby perceiving fewer barriers.

In sum, the regression results confirm the third hypothesis and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of how emotional and sociodemographic variables jointly influence the formation of perceived barriers in adolescence.

4.4. Strengths and Limitations of the Study

This study offers several notable strengths. It contributes to a relatively underexplored area by examining the relationship between perceived educational barriers and future orientation among Italian adolescents—a population for which empirical data remain limited. The research is grounded in well-established theoretical frameworks, including Social Cognitive Career Theory (Lent et al., 2002) and the Contextual and Cultural Model of Coping (Heppner et al., 2014), and employs validated instruments with sound psychometric properties. Moreover, the use of hierarchical regression analysis enabled a nuanced examination of the relative contributions of sociodemographic and motivational variables.

Despite these strengths, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design restricts the ability to draw causal inferences. Although significant associations emerged between sociodemographic characteristics, future orientation, and perceived educational barriers, the temporal direction of these relationships remains unclear. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine how these constructs evolve over time and whether one causally influences the other.

Second, the exclusive use of self-report questionnaires introduces potential biases, including social desirability and subjective distortions—particularly relevant in adolescence, a developmental stage marked by emotional variability (El Mallah et al., 2024) and identity exploration (Erikson, 1968). Third, we acknowledge that the sample was non-probabilistic and not representative, and future research should rely on larger and more representative samples. Fourth, although the sample included students from different types of high schools, it was limited to two northern Italian regions (Lombardy and Piedmont), which may reduce the generalizability of the findings. Regional disparities in educational systems, socioeconomic conditions, and cultural norms across Italy could influence students’ perceptions of educational barriers and future opportunities.

Furthermore, while the sample size was adequate for statistical analysis, the absence of qualitative data limited the study’s capacity to capture the richness of adolescents’ lived experiences, especially how they emotionally process and narrate perceived obstacles. Finally, the study did not account for potentially relevant variables such as ethnic background, immigration status, or mental health indicators, all of which may influence how adolescents perceive and respond to educational barriers. Addressing these limitations in future research would enhance the evidence base and provide a more comprehensive understanding of how psychological and contextual factors interact to shape educational trajectories in adolescence.

4.5. Implications and Future Directions

The findings of this study carry important implications for educational practice, policy, and future research. First, the gender differences identified in RQ1 highlight the need for targeted school-based interventions to reduce internalized academic stress and strengthen self-efficacy, particularly among adolescent girls who appear more vulnerable to internal educational barriers. Programs that foster emotional regulation, challenge restrictive gender norms, and promote positive academic self-concepts may help mitigate the psychological pressures that contribute to self-doubt and disengagement.

Second, the significant correlations observed in RQ2 underscore the importance of addressing both structural and motivational dimensions of students’ educational experiences. Specifically, the influence of perceived social status, parental education, and future orientation on perceived barriers suggests that interventions should adopt a systemic approach—one that integrates socioeconomic background, family support, and the development of future-planning skills to provide more holistic support.

Third, the predictive role of future orientation, as demonstrated in RQ3, positions it not only as a protective factor but also as a potential point of intervention for reducing perceived barriers across diverse student profiles. Enhancing adolescents’ future orientation and academic self-efficacy may be especially beneficial for girls and students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.

The systematic review by Psaki et al. (2022) further contextualizes these findings by evaluating the effectiveness of policies and interventions aimed at removing gender-related barriers to girls’ education, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The review shows that some strategies, especially those that reduce direct costs (e.g., scholarships, uniforms, school meals) and improve access and school safety, are effective. Interventions involving family and community engagement or promoting girls’ empowerment also yield promising, though more variable, results. However, the effectiveness of these initiatives depends heavily on contextual factors, and there is limited evidence of long-term impact or the capacity to shift entrenched gender norms. Thus, the review emphasizes the need for context-sensitive, multisectoral, and sustained approaches to intervention.

Future research should build on these insights by employing longitudinal designs to track how adolescents’ perceptions of barriers evolve over time and interact with processes such as identity formation, peer dynamics, and academic performance. Moreover, mixed methods studies could enrich our understanding of how adolescents interpret and narrate their educational pathways and internal obstacles. Ultimately, addressing both external constraints and internal cognitive-emotional processes in educational planning is essential for fostering more equitable, supportive, and motivating learning environments that empower all students to pursue their academic goals.

5. Conclusions

This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how Italian adolescents perceive educational barriers and how these perceptions are shaped by gender, sociodemographic background, and future orientation. The findings emphasize the critical role of internal psychological processes—particularly among girls—in influencing the perception of educational obstacles, even when external conditions are comparable. Additionally, the results confirm the relevance of structural factors such as parental education and perceived social status, alongside the protective function of future orientation in mitigating perceived barriers.

By integrating developmental, motivational, and contextual perspectives, this study underscores the need for comprehensive interventions that target both external inequalities and internalized beliefs shaping adolescents’ academic engagement. Promoting future-oriented thinking and emotional self-efficacy, especially among students from disadvantaged or vulnerable backgrounds, emerges as a promising strategy for cultivating educational resilience and equity. Future longitudinal and mixed-methods research is needed to examine how these dynamics evolve over time and to inform the design of evidence-based strategies that support adolescents in navigating their educational trajectories.