Introduction
Socioeconomic status (SES), which contains aspects such as cognitive abilities, emotional wellness, and social interactions, significantly affects adolescent age. Research repeatedly confirms that regardless of circumstances, adolescents with peers from low SES backgrounds are prone to be different in brain structure, temperament characteristics, and making decision processes than those from moderate to high SES backgrounds. These pervasive disparities often originate from weak access to material essentials such as exceptional education, health, and social support environment. Inequities that accompany low SES are associated with problems such as insecurity of finances and environmental deprivation, which make it difficult for children to follow the appropriate developmental pattern. Confronting socioeconomic inequality is extremely important as it determines the possible future outcomes for adolescents and their opportunities. In doing so, policymakers and stakeholders will be able to not only narrow down the opportunity gaps across diverse economic groups but also make sure that the necessary resources and support systems, such as guidance and counseling programs, are in place, facilitating healthy development during adolescence. In the end, such a problem facing SES belongs to the challenges that need to be eliminated so that adolescents can finally break through and become adults due to the circumstances where they are not in any way dependent on poverty. Here, I analyze some recent scientific research that clarifies the relationship between low SES and detrimental effects on psychological structures, perception, emotion, and decision-making processes of adolescence. This essay explores how economic status affects teenagers’ change while considering experimental data of studies that link (SES) with several developmental aspects and applying ecological systems theory.
Article Summary 1
The research by Jenkins and his colleagues in 2020 examines the role of socioeconomic status (SES) in the development of subcortical regions in adolescents. The critical hypothesis within the article was whether the backgrounds of higher SES were connected to some of the subcortical brains and influenced them or not. By way of structural MRI scans and socioeconomic databases, the scientists discovered the correlation between lower SES and structural variations in the brain regions associated with threat processing and reward processing. This phenomenon is more common among women, thus showing a sex-specific effect. The data highlights the influence of socioeconomic differences among youth in brain development as it may lead to long-term memory and emotional and cognitive issues. The exploration of these mechanisms remains a principal topic for researchers, as well as for their further implications for adolescent development and wellness.
Article Summary 2
This research article by Strickhouser and Sutin (2020) is about a link between socioeconomic status (SES) and the temperament development of children from the age of 4 to the age of 15. Harvesting data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, the research concludes that areas with worse familial and neighborhood socioeconomic status are related to more negative temperament, including less social relaxation, more reactivity, and a higher threshold to complete tasks. Family and environmental background were proposed as independent variables, which facilitated the investigation of individual temperament and its impact on the adolescent process. Children who have these positive interactions during preschool maintain the beneficiary elements even in favor of their adult personal features. The findings point out the long-lasting effect of childhood SES on temperament development, specifically in the areas of emotional and mental health, reaffirming the importance of improvement of social and economic conditions if we are to promote positive developmental outcomes across the lifespan.
Article Summary 3
This article by Sheehy-Skeffington scrutinizes how poor SES determines decision-making processes. This notion underscores the adaptive nature of the mind in low-income institutions. When people are faced with scenarios such as resource scarcity, environmental instability, and low social status, they always perceive the present needs to be more significant than long-term aspirations. The hypothesis argues that socioeconomic status reveals different patterns that could affect this thinking process at some particular moments, and this is where a lot of concerns have been expressed, especially for those adolescents from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Instagram influencers have to walk a tightrope, where small shifts in regulatory processes and the focus on cognitive abilities lead to decisions that may be rational in terms of social and economic dangers but may cause long-term damage to influencers’ careers. The article argues for the consideration of the social and ecological features (that is, “socioecological cues”), which illustrate mechanisms of motivational choice activation in low SES contexts, demonstrating complexity in decisions rooted in limited mental resources.
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 relate to inadequate funds to manage the family’s needs, which may 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