Socioeconomic Status Research Research Articles

Persistence of Poverty: How Measures of Socioeconomic Status Have Changed Over Time

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a common measure used to gauge social, cultural, and financial capital in scientific literature. Over time, SES research has produced an extremely wide and inconsistently used variety of SES variables and components. This study will review research that estimates SES and will examine common components and trends from the inception of its measurement to present data. A systematic review protocol was used to gather literature related to SES, and a historical analysis was conducted to examine the SES variables and their components that were most commonly used in the literature. Results displayed varying trends by decade, with earlier SES measures including components on social capital and more recent measures incorporating aspects of cultural and economic capital. Subjective perspectives of social class became more common toward the turn of the century, and few measures included components from more asset-based frameworks. The Big 3 measures (parental education, parental occupation, and income) have been common measures across time.

The relationship between cognitive enrichment and cognitive control: A systematic investigation of environmental influences on development through socioeconomic status.

We measured the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on cognitive processes. We examined cognitive control, specifically working memory (WM), in a sample of N=141 7- to 17-year-olds using rule-guided behavior tasks. Our hypothesis is based on computational modeling data that suggest that the development of flexible cognitive control requires variable experiences in which to implement rule-guided action. We found that not all experiences that correlated with SES in our sample impacted task performance, and not all experiential variables that impacted performance were associated with SES. Of the experiential variables associated with task performance, only cognitive enrichment opportunities worked indirectly through SES to affect WM as tested with rule-guided behavior tasks. We discuss the data in the context of necessary precision in SES research.

The Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and Counseling Outcomes

In this study, we examined the relationship between various indices of socioeconomic status (SES) and counseling outcomes among clients at a university counseling center. We also explored links between SES and three factors that are generally regarded as facilitative of client change in counseling: motivation, treatment expectancy and social support. Regression analyses showed that, overall, SES predicted positive changes in symptom checklists over the course of treatment. Individual SES variables predicting positive change were educational attainment and whether the client had health insurance. SES was not associated with motivation, treatment expectancy or social support. Implications for SES research and counseling are discussed.Keywords: socioeconomic status, counseling outcomes, social support, motivation, treatment expectancy, university counseling centerThere is a robust relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and mental health (Goodman & Huang, 2001; Strohschein, 2005), a finding that researchers have consistently replicated (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000; Kraus, Adler, & Chen, 2012; Muntaner, Eaton, Miech, & O'Campo, 2004; von Soest, Bramness, Pedersen, & Wichstrom, 2012). Furthermore, researchers have linked SES to important outcomes in a number of domains, including academic achievement and employability (Blustein et al., 2002) and health service utilization (Goodman & Huang, 2001). Pope-Davis and Coleman (2001) argued that SES is an important cultural variable that is closely aligned with race and gender. Despite the risk factor that SES poses for mental health and well-being, the current literature does not empirically represent SES as much as other cultural variables, especially with regard to counseling outcome research (Falconnier, 2009; Liu, 2011). To respond to this shortcoming, we investigated potential links between SES and counseling outcome.SES and Mental HealthSES as a Variable of StudyIn the last 20 years, two content analyses have reviewed cultural variables and SES within counseling (Liu, Soleck, Hopps, Dunston, & Pickett, 2004; Pope-Davis, Ligiero, Liang, & Codrington, 2001). Liu et al. (2004) reviewed three journals from 1981-2000 and concluded that SES was mainly studied post hoc, and used primarily to account for unexplained variance. Similarly, focusing on the Journal of Multicultural Counseling between the years of 1985 and 1999, Pope-Davis et al. (2001) analyzed the content of articles for prominent multicultural variables and found that SES was underexamined as a primary variable of study. Taken together, both content analyses pointed to an overall lack of attention to SES in mental health counseling literature.There is agreement regarding the multicultural and social justice relevance of economic empowerment and SES in the field of counseling (Ratts, Toporek, & Lewis, 2010); however, available SES counseling literature is predominantly conceptual and not empirical. There are several possibilities for the overall lack of empirical investigations into SES and counseling outcomes. First, only recently have mental health counselors made a concerted effort to empirically demonstrate counseling outcomes (Hays, 2010). In addition, Smith, Chambers, and Bratini (2009) opined that, while research on the pathogenic impact of poverty on emotional well-being is robust and logical, the development of practitioner-based interventions has been limited. The counseling profession has not been a leader in empirically studying this complex variable, which further limits the profession's contributions to research-based interventions. Moreover, SES is complex (Liu et al, 2004); its etiology is often interconnected with mental health risk factors. One challenge of SES research, then, is effectively conceptualizing which aspect of the variable to address first. This challenge is best expressed in the old adage Which came first, the chicken or the egg? …

The social emotional developmental and cognitive neuroscience of socioeconomic gradients: laboratory, population, cross-cultural and community developmental approaches

The social emotional developmental and cognitive neuroscience of socioeconomic gradients: laboratory, population, cross-cultural and community developmental approaches

Improving Research of Children Using a Rights-Based Approach: A Case Study of Some Psychological Research About Socioeconomic Status

Socioeconomic status (SES) and other social determinants of health are “identified as top priorities for action” in research [Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children (CCRC), 2011, p. 42]. Consequently, SES is increasingly popular in some psychological and neuroscience research in order to expand upon understanding of its relationship to child development. In sum, this research demonstrates: “Growing up in a family with low SES is associated with substantially worse health and impaired psychological well-being, and impaired cognitive and emotional development throughout the lifespan” (Hackman et al., 2010, p. 651). Expanding the SES focus to include consideration of child rights (CR) in the research process, structure, and results would advance better understanding of children and improve research about them. This brief article inquires: how would CR assist research about children by psychologists interested in neuroscience and SES? In short, children have human rights, which involve “the right to be properly researched” (Knowing Children, 2010). Indeed, Steinmetz (2010), p. 12 states that all our knowledge about how “abnormal child development” adversely affects the child's brain structure and capacity can be ultimately traced back to the disrespect of his/her rights. As such, CR should inform efforts related to researching the relationship between SES and neuroscience. This brief commentary recognizes SES includes “occupations and thus the underlying levels of education and resulting incomes of the adult members of a household” (Johnson et al., 2007, p. 526). First, this article describes a child RBA (CRBA). Then, a CRBA frames analysis of some recent neuroscience and SES research and review articles before concluding.

Estimating the impact of mandatory folic acid fortification on the folic acid intake of Australian women of childbearing age

The primary aim of this study was to estimate the impact of mandatory folic acid (FA) fortification of bread-making flour on the FA intake of Australian women of childbearing age (16-44 years). The secondary objective was to investigate the relationship between estimated FA intake and socio-economic status (SES) and age. Dietary modelling was used to estimate FA intake under four mandatory fortification scenarios--no supplement use, supplement use unrelated to FA intake, supplement use only among the highest consumers of bread, and increased supplement use. Data were obtained from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey for food intake patterns, the 2007 Victorian Population Health Survey for FA supplement use, and a marketplace survey. It is estimated that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recommendation for an additional 400 μg/day [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED] FA will be achieved by a minimum of 3.9, 25.4, 21.7 and 30% of the target population under scenarios 1-4, respectively. The FA upper level of intake is exceeded by a maximum of 0.1, 1.7, 6.1 and 4.1% of the target population for scenarios 1-4, respectively. Conclusions : Mandatory FA fortification is not sufficient for the NHMRC recommendations for minimum and maximum intakes to be met by all of the target population under a number of plausible behaviour scenarios. Targeted nutrition education campaigns are needed for SES and age sub-groups and research of this nature should be extended to other population groups. Monitoring and evaluation of this policy will be important to ensure appropriate FA intake.