Introduction
There has been a great debate on the impact of socioeconomic status on adolescent development. This was done after several studies established different reasons for this. From the evidence, it has been confirmed that socioeconomic status is that condition has been considered a significant step within the lives of the adolescent as it has dramatically impacted their development. It is well tied to the social and economic position of a person. This determines a person’s worth and is connected to their income, level of education, and occupation or career. This has been a severe issue, especially within some communities. Thus, there has been a call to analyze the issue and how it affects overall productivity and growth. This can be achieved through studying the problem. For example, those people living in poor households will continuously suffer as they grow and develop things like having great nutrition and a balanced diet while those in lower socioeconomic status. “This paper explores the connection between socioeconomic status and adolescent development by examining three articles and their relationship to the ecological systems theory.”
Article Summary 1
Jenkins et al. (2020) conducted a study that investigated the association between SES and subcortical structural variations in adolescents. The critical hypothesis within the article was to check on the interconnects between higher SES backgrounds and their impact on the different subcortical brains. The results confirm that low SES strongly impacts the subcortical brain structure. On the other hand, the brain parts associated with stagnant growth include the “hippocampus, amygdala, and thalamus,” brain regions related to cognitive and emotional processing. A comparison has also been made with individuals from higher socioeconomic statuses, and the result has shown that these individuals have been experiencing economic challenges.
Article Summary 2
Strickhouser and Sutin (2020) conducted a longitudinal study that offered a deep dive into the relationship between families and neighborhood socioeconomic status and temperament development from childhood to adolescence. The hypothesis focused on families and different neighborhoods, which helped analyze temperament traits and their connection with adolescent development. Longitudinal data was used in the analysis, which helped analyze the impacts of SES factors. The study also revealed a significant connection between family and neighborhood SES. From the findings, one can conclude that low SES is attributed to these adolescents’ complex and challenging lives.
Article Summary 3
Sheehy-Skeffington (2020) reviewed the literature on the effects of low SES on decision-making processes. The hypothesis posits that low SES highlights different patterns that could impact the decision-making process and has been after evident concerns, especially among adolescents from lower socioeconomic status. The authors compared decision-making results based on different socioeconomic statuses. The results, on the other hand, have revealed that those individuals from lower socioeconomic statuses have been strongly linked with riskier decisions and have lesser control in the decision-making process. Findings also highlight that their choices have disadvantaged the society and the organization within which they are focusing. Herein, it has been noted that decision-making can have negative consequences for their cognitive and emotional development.
Theory
The theory that best explains the relationship between SES and child development is the ecological systems theory. This theory states that many systemic factors impact a child’s development. The four major systems that could determine a child’s development are the microsystem, mesosystem, macrosystem, and exosystem. Within the microsystem spectrum, the central point is that the immediate environment these children are exposed to, including their families and peers, plays a significant role in their development. In this case, SES could directly impact the available resources at their disposal. One good example is the higher rates of family stress that may be linked to adolescents coming from low SES Backgrounds. This group might also be associated with limited access to critical aspects of life, such as education and other inter-curriculum activities fundamental to their growth. This, in the end, could be a great hindrance to their academic success. For instance, when children stay out of school due to a lack of school fees, it may impact their overall performance as they will miss a lot in the classrooms. Their social relationship and emotional wellness may also be affected.
Mesosystems are about adolescents’ interaction within many systems that determine their development. The SES can significantly influence the quality and nature of their interaction. For instance, adolescents may be challenged to enjoy the home and school transitions. In most cases, they spend much time in the school environment, characterized by a lack of enough parental guidance. These children will enjoy more time with peers and teachers. Hence, the parents’ expectations as far as their behaviors are concerned might need to be met. Ultimately, this might significantly affect the sense of belonging within this group. They may also face a massive challenge in adjusting to the environment, affecting their whole brain development and functionality.
Macrosystems, on the other hand, represent the broader content. In this case, the significant factors that could be noticed include cultural, societal, and economic factors. It describes the opportunities that these adolescents might miss within the societal context. Some of these factors could relate to inadequate funds to manage the family’s needs, which may, on the other hand, hamper access to quality care and other social services. These adolescents may also face discrimination and poverty, which may affect their development trajectories. This, in the long run, may also hinder their life outcomes.
Lastly, the ecosystems are those systems that the adolescents do not directly like. They could be summed as the indirect forces that impact the overall development of this group. Some of these could be related to available opportunities and resources at their disposal. The same factors could be within their control, such as those affecting the whole economy or occurring naturally. Some of this could also be linked to the net income of their parents, which may be very small in managing their overall needs. The above factors may strongly affect the development of this group. Indeed, systems theory is a significant factor that helps understand the factors linked to child development, especially in adolescents. With all these factors at their disposal, one may be hit by huge constraints that may hamper their behavior and cognition. It is essential to consider all these factors to understand what can be done to reverse them or to ensure quality of life.
Idea Synthesis 1
The above studies are ideal as they are directly linked to the thesis statement, and they argue that SES could negatively affect adolescents’ development. This has been supported by many examples and samples, proving the assumption’s validity. For example, as argued by Jenkins et al. (2020) within his study, it is clear that SES plays a fundamental role in determining the structural variations that might be linked to brain development as it invades different brain regions that play essential roles in cognitive and emotional processing. Another similar example is the survey by Strickhouser and Sutin (2020), which established many factors that affect the development of adolescents. Within his study, it is clear that SES is directly associated with negative emotions and reduced effortful control. This, in other words, affects the overall development of the children.
The two strongly relate to the ecological systems theory and provide a framework for understanding how SES influences child development. It is evident through the system that low SES plays a vital role in determining the development of these adolescents. As discussed above, four systems could be linked to the development of these children. The systems directly impact how they interact and associate within the broader societal spectrum. For example, the microsystem is connected with the direct environment that affects the development of these children.
Idea Synthesis 2
Nonetheless, the review conducted by Sheehy-Skeffington (2020) offers a contrary view of the above two. This article maintains that low SES is associated with riskier decision-making and less control over decision-making processes. This is the opposite of the other two, highlighting that adolescents from lower SES may reveal some behaviors that may be detrimental to their development. The idea insinuates that such an impact on development could increase the risk within their environment. This contradiction underscores the complexity of the relationship between SES and their development.
On the other hand, it agrees with the SES theory, which holds that some behaviors are kin to the development of an adolescent. These trends have repeatedly occurred as the adolescent interacts with the surrounding environment. However, the argument seems different from what was stated in the above two articles. Indeed, the surrounding ecosystem is the center of the developmental stages rather than the perceptions.
Conclusion
This essay has argued that low SES is associated with poorer child development. From the above studies, it is crystal clear that child development, especially in the adolescent group, has been dramatically affected by the environments that surround them. On the other hand, systems theory highlights various environments that could significantly impact development. Within the systems, one could quickly note that children from lower or disadvantaged SES suffer considerably in terms of accessibility to tremendous and quality resources ideal for their growth and development (Strickhouser and Sutin 2020). With such constraints, these children miss out on the perfect brain development, which may be associated with stress. Addressing the social condition of SES is essential to promote positive child development outcomes. This also calls on ensuring that these adolescents have proper access to all necessary resources ideal for their growth and development. On the other hand, ensure that the children enjoy a perfect transition when balancing home and school environments. These three will provide better and better quality development for adolescents.
References
Jenkins, L. M., Chiang, J. J., Vause, K., Hoffer, L., Alpert, K., Parrish, T. B., … & Miller, G. E. (2020). Subcortical structural variations associated with low socioeconomic status in adolescents. Human brain mapping, 41(1), 162-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24796
Strickhouser, J. E., & Sutin, A. R. (2020). Family and neighborhood socioeconomic status and temperament development from childhood to adolescence. Journal of Personality, 88(3), 515-529. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12507
Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2020). The effects of low socioeconomic status on decision-making processes. Current opinion in psychology, 33, 183-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.043
write