How economic inequality shapes mobility expectations and behaviour in disadvantaged youth

Abstract

Economic inequality can have a range of negative consequences for those in younger generations, particularly for those from lower-socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds.Economists and psychologists, among other social scientists, have addressed this issue, but have proceeded largely in parallel. This Perspective outlines how these disciplines have proposed and provided empirical support for complementary theoretical models. Specifically, both disciplines emphasize that inequality weakens people's belief in socioeconomic opportunity, thereby reducing the likelihood that low-SES young people will engage in behaviors that would improve their chances of upward mobility (e.g., persisting in school, averting teenage pregnancy). In integrating the methods and techniques of economics and psychology, we offer a cohesive framework for considering this issue. When viewed as a whole, the interdisciplinary body of evidence presents a more complete and compelling framework than does either discipline alone.We use this unification to offer policy recommendations that would advance prospects for mobility among low-SES young people.

A belief in socioeconomic mobility promotes the development of academically motivating identities among low-socioeconomic status youth

“…As discussed, the finding that education-dependent future identity is a proximal contributor to academic outcomes (Studies 1-2) suggests that strengthening low-SES youth's mobility beliefs will only be effective as long as they see educational attainment as viable and thus can truly envision realistic education-dependent futures for themselves. Otherwise, they should be more likely to put their efforts into following a different path that does feel like a viable means to future success, and thus is easier for them to envision themselves attaining (see Browman et al, 2019). The implication is that interventions targeting low-SES youth need to highlight or provide viable education-based opportunities for attaining upward mobility in order to effectively promote the adoption of education-dependent future identities.…”

“…More critically, from a practical standpoint, such findings would suggest that while both factors contribute to academic outcomes , education-dependent future identity may be a more proximal and direct contributor. If this is the case, then strengthening low-SES youth's mobility beliefs should only be effective as long as they see educational attainment as viable for them, and thus can truly see education as connected to successful futures (see Browman, Destin, Kearney, & Levine, 2019). In other words, such findings would suggest that interventions designed to improve academic intentions and performance among low-SES youth need to provide them with viable education-based opportunities for attaining upward mobility in order to promote the development of educationdependent future identities.…”

The use of an interdental brush mitigates periodontal health inequalities: the Korean National Health and nutrition examination survey (KNHANES)

“…Economic inequality can have a range of negative consequences for those people of low socioeconomic status (SES) [1]. Income and education level as indicators of SES are important factors that have profound impacts on oral health [2].…”

Understanding the Secondary Exposure to Trauma and Professional Quality of Life of School Counselors

“…While exploring the types of events school counselors report being exposed to in their work with children, this study also explored the relationships between school setting, level, and Title I status and the reported frequency of secondary exposure to trauma among school counselors. Children whose families experience economic injustice may have limited access to nutritious food, proper health care, safe housing, clean air, and so on making them more likely to be thrust into harmful circumstances (Browman et al, 2019). School counselors who identified that they work in a Title I school reported significantly higher levels of secondary exposure to trauma.…”