A Systematic Overview of Meta-Analyses on Socioeconomic Status, Cognitive Ability, and Achievement: The Need to Focus on Specific Pathways

Abstract

Meta-analyses on the relation between socioeconomic status (SES) and performance on measures of cognitive ability and achievement arrive at the same general conclusion of a small to medium association. Advancements in methods make possible for meta-analyses to examine specific pathways linking SES to cognitive ability and achievement, as well as the moderators of these pathways. In this study, we conducted a systematic overview of meta-analyses on SES to address three research questions: 1) what is the direction and overall strength of association between SES and performance on measures of cognitive ability and achievement, and how precise are the effect sizes reported? 2) to what extent have meta-analyses examined moderation by components of SES, age, sex, and race/ethnicity? and 3) to what extent have meta-analyses examined mechanisms linking SES to cognitive ability and achievement? We conducted a systematic search using online archives (i.e., PsycINFO, ERIC, PubMed, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science), searching issues in Psychological Bulletin and Review of Educational Research, and examining references and citations. We identified 14 meta-analyses published between 1982 and 2019. These meta-analyses consistently reported positive associations of small to medium magnitude, indicating that SES is a meaningful contributor to the development of cognitive ability and achievement. Fewer meta-analyses reported evidence of moderation by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. None of the meta-analyses directly examined mechanisms, but provided evidence of possible mechanisms for future research. We suggest that meta-analyses can increase their contribution to future research, interventions, and policy by narrowing their focus on specific pathways.

Socially stratified epigenetic profiles are associated with cognitive functioning in children and adolescents

“…None of these failed probes overlapped with the probes used for DNA-methylation scores. 44 samples were excluded because (1) they showed low intensity probes as indicated by the log of average methylation <9 and their detection p was > 0.01 in >10% of their probes, (2) their self-reported and methylation-estimated sex mismatch, and/or (3) their self-reported and DNA-estimated sex mismatch. Cell composition of immune and epithelial cell types ( i.e., CD4+ T-cell, natural killer cells, neutrophils, eosinophils, B cells, monocytes, CD8+ T-cell, and granulocytes) were estimated using a newly developed child saliva reference panel implemented in the R package “BeadSorted.Saliva.EPIC” within “ewastools” (22).…”

“…Six cognitive outcomes were examined in each cognitive model: (1) Processing speed, (2) general executive functions, (3) perceptual reasoning, (4) verbal comprehension, (5) reading, and (6) math.…”

“…Children’s cognitive function and educational performance are sensitive to environmental input, robustly predict their future social attainments and health (1), and consistently differ by major dimensions of social inequality, such as parental education, income, and race (2, 3). Socioeconomic and racial disparities in child cognitive development arise through various factors tied to classism and racism, including inequitable access to high-quality childcare, educational resources, healthcare, nutrition, and differences in exposure to toxicants, family stress, and neighborhood threat, among other factors (4, 5).…”

Familism values and adjustment among Hispanic/Latino individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

“…Given the many different ways that samples were characterized in terms of education and income in combination with the substantial number of studies where no indicators of socioeconomic status were reported, it was not possible to examine socioeconomic status as a source of heterogeneity. This limitation is not specific to research on familism but also has been documented in other domains of psychological research (Korous et al, 2018(Korous et al, , 2020. In future work, ideally income, educational, and occupational indexes are included to describe the socioeconomic backgrounds of study participants (Cowan et al, 2012;Diemer et al, 2013).…”

Causes and Consequences of Interindividual Response Variability: A Call to Apply a More Rigorous Research Design in Acute Exercise-Cognition Studies

“…In addition, there is some evidence that non-modifiable factors such socioeconomic status (SES) can influence the brain integrity and cognitive performance (Hackman and Farah, 2009;Hackman et al, 2010;Staff et al, 2012;Zhang et al, 2015;Farah, 2017;Cermakova et al, 2018;Chan et al, 2018;Korous et al, 2020;Steptoe and Zaninotto, 2020;Yaple and Yu, 2020). Although the direct influence of SES on interindividual variability of cognitive outcomes has, to the best of our knowledge, not extensively examined in acute-exercise cognition studies, it is a crucial factor that probably contribute, among other factors, to interindividual variability in a specific neurocognitive outcome parameter and thus should be assessed in future studies investigating interindividual variability.…”