Identifying the ‘active ingredients’ of socioeconomic disadvantage for youth outcomes in middle childhood

Abstract

Background: Youth experiencing socioeconomic deprivation may be exposed to disadvantage in multiple contexts (e.g., neighborhood, family, and school). To date, however, we know little about the underlying structure of socioeconomic disadvantage, including whether the 'active ingredients' driving its robust effects are specific to one context (e.g., neighborhood) or whether the various contexts increment one another as predictors of youth outcomes. Methods: The present study addressed this gap by examining the underlying structure of socioeconomic disadvantage across neighborhoods, families, and schools, as well as whether the various forms of disadvantage jointly predicted youth psychopathology and cognitive performance. Participants were 1,030 school-aged twin pairs from a subsample of the Michigan State University Twin Registry enriched for neighborhood disadvantage. Results: Two correlated factors underlay the indicators of disadvantage. Proximal disadvantage comprised familial indicators, whereas contextual disadvantage represented deprivation in the broader school and neighborhood contexts. Results from exhaustive modeling analyses indicated that proximal and contextual disadvantage incremented one another as predictors of childhood externalizing problems, disordered eating, and reading difficulties, but not internalizing symptoms. Conclusions: Disadvantage within the family and disadvantage in the broader context, respectively, appear to represent distinct constructs with additive influence, carrying unique implications for multiple behavioral outcomes during middle childhood.

Associations between household income and disordered eating differ across sex and racial identity in a population‐based sample of adults

“…However, some more contemporary studies suggest people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage may have equal or greater rates of EDs and disordered eating behaviors than their more advantaged peers (Gard & Freeman, 1996; Mitchison et al, 2014; Reagan & Hersch, 2005). Results in youth have been particularly consistent in showing increased rates of disordered eating among both boys and girls experiencing familial or neighborhood disadvantage in population‐based samples (Carroll et al, 2023; Mikhail et al, 2021, 2023). These findings align with research showing that socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with other negative mental health outcomes closely related to EDs, including anxiety and depression (Mwinyi et al, 2017; Ross, 2000).…”

“…Given limited prior research, our analyses were somewhat exploratory. However, following prior population-based studies in youth (Carroll et al, 2023;Mikhail et al, 2021Mikhail et al, , 2023, we expected to find that lower SES was associated with greater ED symptoms for both women and men during at least some life stages. Based on prior work by Burke et al (2022) in college students, we expected to find similar or stronger associations between lower SES and increased disordered eating in Black participants relative to White participants due to the added psychological burden and enhanced financial stress (e.g., denied employment or housing opportunities) that may result from racial prejudice and discrimination.…”

Assessing structural models of neighborhood and family sociodemographic characteristics and their relations with externalizing psychopathology.

“…Multilevel study designs that simultaneously control for family and neighborhood variables also find that externalizing psychopathology such as aggression has small to moderate associations (R 2 range = .08-.18) with variables at the family level and small to moderate associations (R 2 range = .01-.18) with variables at the neighborhood level (Beyers et al, 2003;Romano et al, 2005;Santiago et al, 2011). Other studies have also found significant associations between externalizing psychopathology and sociodemographic characteristics at distinct levels of ecological proximity (Carroll et al, 2023) consistent with Bronfenbrenner's (1988) ecological theory of development. As one example, Romano et al (2005) estimated that 28% of the variance in aggression was collectively explained by individual-, family-, and neighborhood-level variables combined in a multilevel model.…”