Socioeconomic status and the brain: prospects for neuroscience-informed policy

Abstract

Socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with health (physical and mental) and cognitive ability. Understanding and ameliorating the problems of low SES have long been goals of economics and sociology; in recent years, these have also become goals of neuroscience. However, opinion varies widely on the relevance of neuroscience to SES-related policy. The present article addresses the question of whether and how neuroscience can contribute to the development of social policy concerning poverty and the social and ethical risks inherent in trying. I argue that the neuroscience approach to SES-related policy has been both prematurely celebrated and peremptorily dismissed and that some of its possible social impacts have been viewed with excessive alarm. Neuroscience has already made modest contributions to SES-related policy, and its potential to have a more effective and beneficial influence can be expected to grow over the coming years.

The relationship between biological and psychosocial risk factors and resting‐state functional connectivity in 2‐month‐old Bangladeshi infants: A feasibility and pilot study

“…The present work expands upon prior studies of poverty by examining infants exposed to extreme biological and psychosocial risk factors in the context of severe poverty. This pilot, along with neuroscientific findings from future studies with larger sample sizes and improved data quality, may inform policies that counteract the risk factors associated with global childhood poverty (Farah, ).…”

“…and improved data quality, may inform policies that counteract the risk factors associated with global childhood poverty (Farah, 2018).…”

Cognitive and brain development is independently influenced by socioeconomic status and polygenic scores for educational attainment

“…The strong relationship observed between SES and global surface area at age 14 is consistent with prior findings 4,8 . There are multiple potential mechanisms mediating an effect of SES on brain development, including stress and glucocorticoids during pregnancy, toxins, premature delivery, maternal care, lack of cognitive stimulation and chronic stress during childhood and adolescence 6,21 . Those factors might exert their influence via brain functioning and possible epigenetic mechanisms.…”

Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations of family income-to-needs ratio with cortical and subcortical brain volume in adolescent boys and girls

“…Household income is one metric of socioeconomic status (SES), or an individual's position in society in terms of material and non-material resources (e.g., education ;Farah, 2017). From a measurement perspective, SES can be assessed on a continuum in which risk for negative outcomes is identified dimensionally in relation to relative resources, with the poorest children being at highest risk for experiencing difficulties in psychological functioning (Adler et al, 1994;Farah, 2018). While children in poverty may develop unique strengths that enhance adaptation to their environments (Frankenhuis & Nettle, 2019), exposure to lower SES in childhood is associated with, on average, poorer language ability (Fernald, Marchman, & Weisleder, 2013), executive function (Lawson, Hook, & Farah, 2018), and mental health (Amone-P'Olak, Burger, Huisman, Oldehinkel, & Ormel, 2011).…”