The Strengths of People in Poverty

Abstract

On average, psychological variables are often statistically different in people living in poverty compared with people living in affluence. The default academic response to this pattern is often the deficit model: Poverty damages or impairs brain function, which leads to poor performance that only exacerbates the poverty. Deficits and damage are real phenomena. However, there are also other processes: People living in poverty may have made reasonable psychological responses to their circumstances or may have developed strengths that enhance their ability to cope with challenges in their lives. We illustrate these points by discussing the linked examples of time preference, early reproduction, and hidden talents. We argue for a balanced approach to the psychology of poverty that integrates deficit and strengths-based models. Future research could focus on the ways in which impairment and adaptation interact.

Understanding the Role of Rural Poor’s Endogenous Impetus in Poverty Reduction: Evidence from China

“…On the spiritual level, evidence shows that the essence of the endogenous impetus of the poor is the exertion of their self-efficacy and the realization of their self-worth [18,41], that is, the poverty reduction aspiration, confidence, courage, and fighting spirit of the poor. On average, psychological variables are often statistically different in people living in poverty compared with people living in affluence [42], which is mainly reflected in the lack of desire and aspiration to change their poverty [43,44]. Aspiration is subordinate to the subjective well-being of the individual in a cognitive dimension and transcends material well-being [45][46][47].…”

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

“…Along this continuum, risk for negative outcomes is identified dimensionally in relation to relative resources, with relatively lower INR individuals being at higher risk for experiencing difficulties in psychological functioning ( Adler et al, 1994 ; Farah, 2018 ). While individuals with lower income-to-needs ratios may develop unique strengths that enhance adaptation to their environments ( Frankenhuis and Nettle, 2019 ), exposure to lower SES in childhood is associated with, on average, poorer language ability ( Fernald et al, 2013 ), executive function ( Lawson et al, 2018 ), and mental health ( Amone-P’Olak et al, 2011 ). Although it is not yet clear precisely how a relative lack of socioeconomic resources may lead to deficits in these domains, researchers have theorized that SES affects neurodevelopment in a manner that leads to disparities in psychological functioning ( Farah, 2017 ; Hackman et al, 2010 )…”

Social class transitions: Three guiding questions for moving the study of class to a dynamic perspective

“…For example, some have argued that the negative effects of being born into an under‐resourced environment are likely to persist and affect the way people engage with others and their work environments (e.g., Barling & Weatherhead, 2016; Pitesa & Pillutla, 2019). This perspective, often referred to as the “deficit model” of social class (see Frankenhuis & Nettle, 2020, overlooks a plethora of arguments from life course socialization, organizational socialization, and acculturation research suggesting that human beings adapt in response to new environmental stimuli. We argue that future research concerning social class can benefit from considering how people change and grow via exposure to new contexts (e.g., Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; Berry, 1997; Dweck, 2008).…”